We should discuss soil as much as coal (2019)(gatesnotes.com)
gatesnotes.com
We should discuss soil as much as coal (2019)
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/We-should-discuss-soil-as-much-as-coal
133 comments
Bill is correct on a lot fronts here. Soil is the big elephant in the room. But the problem remains an economic problem as much as a technical one. We need solutions that are market driven (in addition to the cool innovations he talks about).
https://thinkingagriculture.io/carbon-sequestering-incentive...
"Market driven"? The market has had its chance; "it" is focusing on short-term, optimized profits, on cutting down the rainforests to make way for shitty farms to grow cheap shit to feed to cattle, etc. Some consumers have the funds and the will to buy food from more reputable sources, but I'm confident there's a lot of scummy stuff happening there too.
The market won't solve this; it's time for legislation to control the market before it wrings out everything. We live in an age now where even politicians are wringing out everything they can from a country, funneling billions to themselves and their friends, leaving the country in shambles while they retire to their private islands because hey, not their problem anymore.
The market won't solve this; it's time for legislation to control the market before it wrings out everything. We live in an age now where even politicians are wringing out everything they can from a country, funneling billions to themselves and their friends, leaving the country in shambles while they retire to their private islands because hey, not their problem anymore.
I think your unecesserally criticising the person your commenting on.
They never said free/unregulated market. They just said market driven.
Markets and market forces are tools. If left unregulated they, as you pointed out, devolve into optimising for the short term and the narrow bad of monetisable effects (ie the problem of externalities).
But a regulated market is a force to be recond with, and if properly regulated, a force for a lot of good.
So you are both right. We need market solutions (as those are most effective) but within a regulated market that makes sure that market forces are pushing everyone in the direction that is good for society.
They never said free/unregulated market. They just said market driven.
Markets and market forces are tools. If left unregulated they, as you pointed out, devolve into optimising for the short term and the narrow bad of monetisable effects (ie the problem of externalities).
But a regulated market is a force to be recond with, and if properly regulated, a force for a lot of good.
So you are both right. We need market solutions (as those are most effective) but within a regulated market that makes sure that market forces are pushing everyone in the direction that is good for society.
Combatting the impact of soil without doing anything about our impossible to scale diet is bound to fail isn't it?
A huge chunk of our net impact on global warming and deforestation is a direct result of our food system, namely animal agriculture.
There is disagreement about just how inefficient turning an acre of corn into slabs of cow, but it should be clear that it is some fraction of the efficiency of just eating that corn as food itself.
A huge chunk of our net impact on global warming and deforestation is a direct result of our food system, namely animal agriculture.
There is disagreement about just how inefficient turning an acre of corn into slabs of cow, but it should be clear that it is some fraction of the efficiency of just eating that corn as food itself.
The statement that "animal agriculture = bad" is a half-truth.
It's true that if you feed corn to pigs most of the energy gets thermalized.
It's also true that animals can eat grass in places where the soil would dry up and blow away if you tried to grow corn.
It's true that if you feed corn to pigs most of the energy gets thermalized.
It's also true that animals can eat grass in places where the soil would dry up and blow away if you tried to grow corn.
This is true, but a large proportion of the animals we rear are fed on grains since there is not nearly enough grassland to feed enough animals for everyone to eat a typical western diet.
Edit: the very first link I found puts the figure at 97% of cattle in the US coming from feedlots. https://www.thoughtco.com/feedlot-organic-and-grass-fed-beef...
Edit: the very first link I found puts the figure at 97% of cattle in the US coming from feedlots. https://www.thoughtco.com/feedlot-organic-and-grass-fed-beef...
Cattle only enter feedlots during the final weeks of their lives. For nearly the entirety of their lives, cattle are indeed grazed.
Citation needed
"Can" is the operative word here. This argument gets brought up time and time again to support animal agriculture and makes a few generalisations. The first is that all pasture land is unfit for growing crops, the second is that all cattle farming is entirely grass fed, finally all this is localized only to cattle yet is presented as a kind of argument for all animal agriculture.
Corn (not to be confused with sweet corn, which is a different crop) has pretty limited use for human consumption, though. The foods that humans enjoy eating on a regular basis, including sweet corn, are far less efficient to grow and are not necessarily always more efficient than eating animals.
There is indeed a good reason why animal food costs considerably less than human food, and why humans don't resort to eating that cheaper animal food to save money.
There is indeed a good reason why animal food costs considerably less than human food, and why humans don't resort to eating that cheaper animal food to save money.
> The foods that humans enjoy eating on a regular basis, including sweet corn, are far less efficient to grow and are not necessarily always more efficient than eating animals.
To me this is a bold claim. My understanding is eating plants is significantly more efficient per calorie than eating animals on a wide range of scales -- amount of water used, amount of green house gases produced, amount of land consumed. Can you please provide one common example in which a plant humans like to consume is less efficient than a domesticated animal humans like to consume?
To me this is a bold claim. My understanding is eating plants is significantly more efficient per calorie than eating animals on a wide range of scales -- amount of water used, amount of green house gases produced, amount of land consumed. Can you please provide one common example in which a plant humans like to consume is less efficient than a domesticated animal humans like to consume?
> Can you please provide one common example in which a plant humans like to consume is less efficient than a domesticated animal humans like to consume?
It would be worthwhile to define efficiency here, as it can mean a lot of different things, but I'll go with the most readily available numbers that fit within the confines of your comment.
Which means calories to the amount of land consumed. Pork provides 3.5 million calories per acre. Broccoli, only two million calories per acre. For comparison, corn (again, not sweet corn) provides 15 million calories per acre. If you actually ate a corn diet, it would be very efficient, but there is a good reason why you probably don't sustain yourself on a corn diet (those who live on Doritos and sugary drinks excepted). It is not exactly great human food.
Now, that is not the greatest comparison as if you stopped eating pork, you probably wouldn't replace those calories with broccoli, but it does ultimately satisfy your question and illustrates that it is not simply a matter of all plant life always being more efficient. As you can see, corn is really efficient (and not just when it comes to land use), which provides a nice margin for the overall efficiency of animal production.
It would be worthwhile to define efficiency here, as it can mean a lot of different things, but I'll go with the most readily available numbers that fit within the confines of your comment.
Which means calories to the amount of land consumed. Pork provides 3.5 million calories per acre. Broccoli, only two million calories per acre. For comparison, corn (again, not sweet corn) provides 15 million calories per acre. If you actually ate a corn diet, it would be very efficient, but there is a good reason why you probably don't sustain yourself on a corn diet (those who live on Doritos and sugary drinks excepted). It is not exactly great human food.
Now, that is not the greatest comparison as if you stopped eating pork, you probably wouldn't replace those calories with broccoli, but it does ultimately satisfy your question and illustrates that it is not simply a matter of all plant life always being more efficient. As you can see, corn is really efficient (and not just when it comes to land use), which provides a nice margin for the overall efficiency of animal production.
Wow, I found this cool PDF of a document from 1917 which has calories yields per acre. It's incredible how much yields have increased in 100 years.
It records Pork at 672k calories per acre
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/ORC00000242/PDF
EDIT: Another great quote from the PDF "The soy bean.—Soy beans lead all other crops in the production of digestible protein, exceeding corn in this respect by almost exactly 100 per cent. This crop deserves more attention in this country than it has yet received. There is no reasonable possibility of overplanting it. "
It records Pork at 672k calories per acre
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/ORC00000242/PDF
EDIT: Another great quote from the PDF "The soy bean.—Soy beans lead all other crops in the production of digestible protein, exceeding corn in this respect by almost exactly 100 per cent. This crop deserves more attention in this country than it has yet received. There is no reasonable possibility of overplanting it. "
I think you are missing something very obvious which cannot be captured by a technical analysis of calories per acre.
Who on earth is eating broccoli for the calories? Assuming 34 calories per 100g that would mean I would have to eat 6kg of broccoli every day to reach 2000 calories. I'm not going to exclusively eat broccoli.
Let's go with a slightly more realistic scenario: I have an absurd love for broccoli and eat 50% corn and 50% broccoli (weighted by calories). 15 million calories50% + 2 million calories50% = 8.5 million calories per acre.
As soon as someone gets less than 50% of their calories from broccoli the Pork starts to look very inefficient.
Who on earth is eating broccoli for the calories? Assuming 34 calories per 100g that would mean I would have to eat 6kg of broccoli every day to reach 2000 calories. I'm not going to exclusively eat broccoli.
Let's go with a slightly more realistic scenario: I have an absurd love for broccoli and eat 50% corn and 50% broccoli (weighted by calories). 15 million calories50% + 2 million calories50% = 8.5 million calories per acre.
As soon as someone gets less than 50% of their calories from broccoli the Pork starts to look very inefficient.
Well, you're missing the part where many acres of vegetable crops are inputs into that single acre of pork, so how are you going to compare an acre of pork back to an acre of vegetables as if it just comes out of thin air? For example, 60% of crops in the USA are fed directly to animal ag.
Animal meat is nowhere near as efficient as eating vegetable crops directly. It concerns me how long you've been spouting your claim with such an elementary error.
Animal meat is nowhere near as efficient as eating vegetable crops directly. It concerns me how long you've been spouting your claim with such an elementary error.
> Well, you're missing the part where many acres of vegetable crops are inputs into that single acre of pork
What do you mean by vegetable? It is a rather loaded term. Culinary vegetables are definitely not fed to pigs in any meaningful quantities. They are much too inefficient to even consider. If by vegetable you mean any kind of edible plant, then yes, pigs are fed mostly very-efficient-to-produce corn and soybeans.
Based on the numbers before, when you feed pigs 15 million calories of corn (1 acre), they give back 3.5 million calories of pork. If you fed pigs 2 million calories of broccoli (1 acre) then they would likely only give back 0.4 million calories of pork. But that's a really big reason why you don't normally feed pigs broccoli.
> Animal meat is nowhere near as efficient as eating vegetable crops directly
Agreed, if you are talking about the specific vegetable the animal is eating. However, vegetative efficiency varies greatly from crop to crop. If you feed animals the most efficient plants, then they can still be more efficient overall than the less efficient vegetables are alone. As before, the food the animals eat is, for all intents and purposes, not the same food that you eat. Plants that are intended to be fed to humans are generally less efficient to produce, for various reasons.
What do you mean by vegetable? It is a rather loaded term. Culinary vegetables are definitely not fed to pigs in any meaningful quantities. They are much too inefficient to even consider. If by vegetable you mean any kind of edible plant, then yes, pigs are fed mostly very-efficient-to-produce corn and soybeans.
Based on the numbers before, when you feed pigs 15 million calories of corn (1 acre), they give back 3.5 million calories of pork. If you fed pigs 2 million calories of broccoli (1 acre) then they would likely only give back 0.4 million calories of pork. But that's a really big reason why you don't normally feed pigs broccoli.
> Animal meat is nowhere near as efficient as eating vegetable crops directly
Agreed, if you are talking about the specific vegetable the animal is eating. However, vegetative efficiency varies greatly from crop to crop. If you feed animals the most efficient plants, then they can still be more efficient overall than the less efficient vegetables are alone. As before, the food the animals eat is, for all intents and purposes, not the same food that you eat. Plants that are intended to be fed to humans are generally less efficient to produce, for various reasons.
Because OP truly could not have included the number of acres required to support pork in the 'acres of pork' figure?
It sounds to me like he did include the crops fed to pigs in the acreage
It sounds to me like he did include the crops fed to pigs in the acreage
How could that conversion work while respecting the second law? Here’s a good breakdown on the subject: https://stanfordmag.org/contents/can-vegetarianism-save-the-...
Factory farms help with the numbers. You can keep pigs more dense even if they don't depend upon the area for the source of feed - just like humans and urban density. A high density in 1 acre ks perfectly plauisble but it ignores the feed crop acres. At that point efficency should be total crop calories * pig efficency margin (10% for standard trophic level to back of the envelope) / (acres of corn + acres of pig).
If you took the density scale to something really absurd the pig acre efficiency would be the crop times the multiplier as that space converges eventually converges to becomes negligible and just "pig efficency * feed crop calorie/acre" effectively. Granted the effective convergence point may not be realistic without real world data but if factory farms are big enough it comes out to the same order of magnitude as brocoli about 1.5 vs 2. Of course there are a lot of other things to legitimagely object to about said arrangement but it surpringly lines up to be comparable to vegetable crops in caloric efficiency.
A more in depth answer would look at the caloric share of diets in consumption - most people don't get their bulk calories from vegetables.
If you took the density scale to something really absurd the pig acre efficiency would be the crop times the multiplier as that space converges eventually converges to becomes negligible and just "pig efficency * feed crop calorie/acre" effectively. Granted the effective convergence point may not be realistic without real world data but if factory farms are big enough it comes out to the same order of magnitude as brocoli about 1.5 vs 2. Of course there are a lot of other things to legitimagely object to about said arrangement but it surpringly lines up to be comparable to vegetable crops in caloric efficiency.
A more in depth answer would look at the caloric share of diets in consumption - most people don't get their bulk calories from vegetables.
> If you took the density scale to something really absurd...
> Of course there are a lot of other things to legitimagely object to about said arrangement...
The sad reality is that the density scale at pig factory farms is already well past morally objectionable territory if you are concerned at all about animal welfare. I’ve linked resources on this before and can do so again if desired, it’s horrible stuff.
Pigs are about the same as dogs in their sentience and even suitability as a pet. I don’t see how one can justify caring for a dog as a pet and also buying factory-farmed pork once they learn about it. Small farms with better living conditions are arguably more justifiable. I don’t eat animals any more, stopped for different reasons, but being aware plays a role in keeping me from going back.
> Of course there are a lot of other things to legitimagely object to about said arrangement...
The sad reality is that the density scale at pig factory farms is already well past morally objectionable territory if you are concerned at all about animal welfare. I’ve linked resources on this before and can do so again if desired, it’s horrible stuff.
Pigs are about the same as dogs in their sentience and even suitability as a pet. I don’t see how one can justify caring for a dog as a pet and also buying factory-farmed pork once they learn about it. Small farms with better living conditions are arguably more justifiable. I don’t eat animals any more, stopped for different reasons, but being aware plays a role in keeping me from going back.
[deleted]
> How could that conversation work while respecting the second law?
Well, if you start with 15 million calories worth of corn, feed it to pigs, and you get 3.5 million calories of pork back out, the rest of the energy is exerted to keep the animal alive through its life. The second law is respected.
Meanwhile, an equivalent acreage of broccoli only provides 2 million calories, being far less efficient at converting the environment's resources into calories than corn, so it is starting from behind and never makes up for just how efficient corn really is. The second law continues to be respected.
If you fed that broccoli to pigs, you might not even get half a million calories of pork back, but that's why we don't feed pigs broccoli. Still no violation of the second law.
I am not really sure where you think the violation was meant to occur?
Well, if you start with 15 million calories worth of corn, feed it to pigs, and you get 3.5 million calories of pork back out, the rest of the energy is exerted to keep the animal alive through its life. The second law is respected.
Meanwhile, an equivalent acreage of broccoli only provides 2 million calories, being far less efficient at converting the environment's resources into calories than corn, so it is starting from behind and never makes up for just how efficient corn really is. The second law continues to be respected.
If you fed that broccoli to pigs, you might not even get half a million calories of pork back, but that's why we don't feed pigs broccoli. Still no violation of the second law.
I am not really sure where you think the violation was meant to occur?
Cherry picking some unproductive crops doesn’t prove your argument against animal agriculture’s impact on climate change. Some actually useful real data: http://www.waldeneffect.org/blog/Calories_per_acre_for_vario...
> Cherry picking some unproductive crops doesn’t prove your argument
It was asked by a previous commenter in the thread to cherry-pick a crop that is less efficient than a cherry-picked animal. It was never meant to prove anything, only to helpfully answer the specific question asked. Trying to change the subject now does nothing to help your cause, which nobody really disagrees with in the first place. Even if you come from a heartfelt place, it is troubling that you did not take the time to read the thread before pushing your agenda. That is not the type of community HN strives to be.
It was asked by a previous commenter in the thread to cherry-pick a crop that is less efficient than a cherry-picked animal. It was never meant to prove anything, only to helpfully answer the specific question asked. Trying to change the subject now does nothing to help your cause, which nobody really disagrees with in the first place. Even if you come from a heartfelt place, it is troubling that you did not take the time to read the thread before pushing your agenda. That is not the type of community HN strives to be.
Your point about corn being really efficient isn’t exactly well substantiated to be honest. I totally agree about civility, but I think it’s a bit disingenuous to be pointing fingers. Have a good night.
Ah yes that calorie dense food broccoli we all know and love... You need to make the comparison with something like soybeans, oats, potatoes or rice.
I wonder if changing the cow's diet could limit the amount of methane generated?
I've noticed that changing my own diet by eliminating animal products has cut down significantly on methane production in my own gut.
My farts literally don't smell like anything at all anymore, when a small one used to clear the room with ease.
I've noticed that changing my own diet by eliminating animal products has cut down significantly on methane production in my own gut.
My farts literally don't smell like anything at all anymore, when a small one used to clear the room with ease.
This recent article discusses this topic - https://onezero.medium.com/cow-farts-are-not-the-problem-f57...
My takeaway from their argument is that eliminating cows may not be as valuable as changing how they're raised & fed.
My takeaway from their argument is that eliminating cows may not be as valuable as changing how they're raised & fed.
This article misses the point entirely.
It's true that most cattle farms are on the small-end, and have plenty of land for their cattle.
It's also true that the vast majority of cows slaughtered for meat come from just a few industrial feedlots.
Changing the way that "most" farms work might change how much methane truth A cows produce, but the vast majority of cows are truth B cows that aren't impacted by the decisions of small-time farmers.
There is not enough land on this earth to allow for free-range cattle at the rate humans consume them. The solution isn't to do it more efficiently, but to stop and do something else. Ford said people would ask for faster horses, and 100 years later we have people wanting cows that fart differently.
It's the cheeseburger you want, not another magic chemical added to the lovecraftian nightmare that is factory farming. The way to reduce the impact cows have on the environment is to reduce the number of cows bred for food.
It's true that most cattle farms are on the small-end, and have plenty of land for their cattle.
It's also true that the vast majority of cows slaughtered for meat come from just a few industrial feedlots.
Changing the way that "most" farms work might change how much methane truth A cows produce, but the vast majority of cows are truth B cows that aren't impacted by the decisions of small-time farmers.
There is not enough land on this earth to allow for free-range cattle at the rate humans consume them. The solution isn't to do it more efficiently, but to stop and do something else. Ford said people would ask for faster horses, and 100 years later we have people wanting cows that fart differently.
It's the cheeseburger you want, not another magic chemical added to the lovecraftian nightmare that is factory farming. The way to reduce the impact cows have on the environment is to reduce the number of cows bred for food.
One could also say people are asking for non-meat as a solution when maybe the answer is to make cow farts different.
This is a good article, I would add to the key takeaway is that methane production from animal husbandry is mostly a closed system, the greenhouse gases being produced by cows are being absorbed from the atmosphere. atmosphere -> photosynthesis in grass -> cows -> atmosphere -> grass etc. So reducing herd sizes doesn't reduce net carbon in the atmosphere.
A couple problems.
Looking at the net carbon paints a very incomplete picture. The effect of methane is very different from CO2, you might describe methane as 30x as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2 is.
The other factor here is that agriculture drives deforestation, which releases sequestered carbon.
Looking at the net carbon paints a very incomplete picture. The effect of methane is very different from CO2, you might describe methane as 30x as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2 is.
The other factor here is that agriculture drives deforestation, which releases sequestered carbon.
According to this[1] seaweed helps cut methane emissions by cows.
[1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-c...
[1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-c...
Methane is odorless, so you might still be producing methane - the decrease in odor has more to do with sulfur compounds
Isn't methane odorless?
That is correct. The smells come from hydrogen sulfide and other molecules.
And the hydrogen sulfide probably comes from the metabolism of cysteine and methionine. A low protein diet will produce less smelly farts.
Um yes
New Zealand researchers gave cows seweed and cut emissions 80% by adding just 2% of it
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/01/from-red-seawe...
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/01/from-red-seawe...
Did you eliminate all animal products or just some?
I have some rooms I’d like to clear out.
I have some rooms I’d like to clear out.
People claim that burning biomass is a net-zero effect on the climate because whatever get burned had once collected the carbon from the air. Then we have people arguing that cows are one of the main contributor to global warming because we feed them grass. In cases with produce that get rejected for once reason or an other, it may either go into animal feed or biomass depending on who is paying the more, and thus the greenness of it changes drastically.
So why are counting the methane from cows in isolation, while biomass is the sum of carbon released minus carbon extracted?
So why are counting the methane from cows in isolation, while biomass is the sum of carbon released minus carbon extracted?
Methane is a lot more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Turning CO2 from the atmosphere back into CO2 is net even. Turning CO2 into methane is net-bad.
Since methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas and has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere compared to CO2, I wonder if it might actually save us. We could render the planet inhospitable early enough to be forced to address the problem without shackling future generations with the fallout like we are doing with CO2.
That's ... not great ... but only viable if methane itself doesn't move the climate past a tipping point to runaway greenhouse effects.
See "clathrate gun hypothesis", for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
See "clathrate gun hypothesis", for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
Doesn't it essentially decay to CO2 eventually anyway? In the long term barring it is equivalent to CO2 per carbon molecule. Granted there are Nth order effects of short term heating.
That CO2 probably came from a cow eating grass so in theory it's not a long term problem either. In practice we are destroying ecosystems faster than they can recover.
Do you know what the half life of methane in the atmosphere is? I did a search for it but couldn't find it.
9.1 years according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
That's funny.
https://www.foodsource.org.uk/building-blocks/agricultural-m... claims
> it is a relatively short-lived GHG, with emissions breaking down after an average of around 10 years.
Looks like someone didn't understand what half-life means, or is being misleading.
https://www.foodsource.org.uk/building-blocks/agricultural-m... claims
> it is a relatively short-lived GHG, with emissions breaking down after an average of around 10 years.
Looks like someone didn't understand what half-life means, or is being misleading.
On average, a molecule of methane breaks down in less than 10 years. That is a true interpretation.
Half life implies that one half of the mehane molecules decay in that period (or that a single one has a 50% of decaying).
Depends on what 'average' you mean I guess. It is true for the median of course. However, if the time for an individual molecule to decay is exponentially distributed, you can solve for lambda to find its expected lifetime is 13.1 years. That being said, I'd say this is a less useful interpretation.
[deleted]
When methane is oxidized it produces carbon dioxide
How much methane do you get out of 1kg biomass vs how much co2 if you burned it? Methane is indeed a more potent (if shorter lived) greenhouse gas, but one would guess that some amount end up either in the cow or as manure which then act as a natural fertilizer. Natural fertilizer is also an object which commonly get classified as having zero carbon footprint, which again, is a bit odd. The manure has zero carbon if used as natural fertilizer, but the meat from the same cow does not.
Methane produces CO₂ when it "decays" (not really decay, but still), so I think "shorter lived" is misleading.
Not true. The main thing that happens is that methane reacts with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere to produce water, formaldehyde, and ozone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Removal_pr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Removal_pr...
> [I]t would be wrong to assume that the FAO figure is totally scientific. Not only does it rely on evidence which is acknowledged to be uncertain. It is also based on a unit, known as the "CO2 equivalent", which assumes that the emission of one tonne of methane is equivalent to the emission from 25 tonnes of CO2
> [S]ince methane degrades quickly, stable emissions of methane lead to a stable level of methane in the atmosphere and no increase in global temperature.
> There is something deeply untrustworthy about a metric which views methane as being many times more harmful than CO2, when only a small reduction in methane emissions is required to stabilise its presence in the atmosphere, whereas a massive reduction in CO2 emissions is required to achieve the same.
Source : https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/sites/default/files/Is%20...
Source : https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/sites/default/files/Is%20...
This source is trash. The 25 factor comes from the relative impact over the next 100 years for emitting both.
It already factors in (relatively) fast breakdown, which the quoted text then attempts to double count.
Stabilization isn't some intrinsic goal.
I'm sure you can find a coal industry trade publication waving its hands just as well to shift the blame to agriculture.
It already factors in (relatively) fast breakdown, which the quoted text then attempts to double count.
Stabilization isn't some intrinsic goal.
I'm sure you can find a coal industry trade publication waving its hands just as well to shift the blame to agriculture.
[deleted]
The source may not be 100% honest, but the point still stands: a small decrease in methane would suffice.
> Stabilization isn't some intrinsic goal.
I think we both know this, now it is certainly easier if that's all what's needed (as opposed to some drastic reduction).
> I'm sure you can find a coal industry trade publication waving its hands just as well to shift the blame to agriculture.
Well yeah, for sure.
> Stabilization isn't some intrinsic goal.
I think we both know this, now it is certainly easier if that's all what's needed (as opposed to some drastic reduction).
> I'm sure you can find a coal industry trade publication waving its hands just as well to shift the blame to agriculture.
Well yeah, for sure.
No, the point does not stand. Not at all!
The fact that there's methane breaking down in the atmosphere right now does not matter at all. It's the wrong mental model.
Each kilogram of methane you emit today is as bad as 25 kilograms of carbon dioxide over the next hundred years. That's it.
The battle for global warming is going to be won or lost over the next 100 years, easily. We'll have the energy to capture our current emissions and turn back the clock by then.
The fact that there's methane breaking down in the atmosphere right now does not matter at all. It's the wrong mental model.
Each kilogram of methane you emit today is as bad as 25 kilograms of carbon dioxide over the next hundred years. That's it.
The battle for global warming is going to be won or lost over the next 100 years, easily. We'll have the energy to capture our current emissions and turn back the clock by then.
We should obviously be worried about other green house gasses, but methane is a particularly bad green house gas in the short term.
>......The IPCC reports that, over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential of 86 compared to CO2, up from its previous estimate of 72. Given that we are approaching real, irreversible tipping points in the climate system, climate studies should, at the very least, include analyses that use this 20-year time horizon.
https://thinkprogress.org/more-bad-news-for-fracking-ipcc-wa...
>......The IPCC reports that, over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential of 86 compared to CO2, up from its previous estimate of 72. Given that we are approaching real, irreversible tipping points in the climate system, climate studies should, at the very least, include analyses that use this 20-year time horizon.
https://thinkprogress.org/more-bad-news-for-fracking-ipcc-wa...
This is a good question.
Biomass consumes then produces CO2, which is net neutral. The concern with cows, whether it is valid at the levels it exists or not, is with methane, cows consume plants formed from atmospheric carbon dioxide but some nontrivial amount is emitted as methane which has many times more greenhouse effect.
Biomass consumes then produces CO2, which is net neutral. The concern with cows, whether it is valid at the levels it exists or not, is with methane, cows consume plants formed from atmospheric carbon dioxide but some nontrivial amount is emitted as methane which has many times more greenhouse effect.
> because whatever get burned had once collected the carbon from the air.
(Not an expert, just guessing here)
That is a long-term part of it. Specifically, biomass is a lot better than fossil fuels because you are not introducing any more carbon into the long-term cycle. But it is not all about the amount of 'above ground' carbon. In the short term, what matters more is 'carbon in the atmosphere'. Here, biomass is net-zero only if either the plants being burned are re-planted (i.e. wood pellets) or the biomass would have rotted away anyway (food remains).
On the other hand, cows take up a lot of acreage that could be used to capture a lot more carbon if the fields weren't filled with just grass. Besides, the actual practice of keeping cows is quite resource intensive. And, as others have said, cows produce methane.
(Not an expert, just guessing here)
That is a long-term part of it. Specifically, biomass is a lot better than fossil fuels because you are not introducing any more carbon into the long-term cycle. But it is not all about the amount of 'above ground' carbon. In the short term, what matters more is 'carbon in the atmosphere'. Here, biomass is net-zero only if either the plants being burned are re-planted (i.e. wood pellets) or the biomass would have rotted away anyway (food remains).
On the other hand, cows take up a lot of acreage that could be used to capture a lot more carbon if the fields weren't filled with just grass. Besides, the actual practice of keeping cows is quite resource intensive. And, as others have said, cows produce methane.
[deleted]
We're not making any progress on co2e because we've choosen not to.
Even if we were, net zero by 2070 (the optimistic outcome here!?) would be pointless, civilisation would be over long before then anyway.
I find all this really frustrating. It's like someone moaning they're fat and telling me about their new diet, the 1000th one this week, where they eat 20 cheese burgers a day and hope for the best. Let's get real and either do something or enjoy the ride to hell.
Even if we were, net zero by 2070 (the optimistic outcome here!?) would be pointless, civilisation would be over long before then anyway.
I find all this really frustrating. It's like someone moaning they're fat and telling me about their new diet, the 1000th one this week, where they eat 20 cheese burgers a day and hope for the best. Let's get real and either do something or enjoy the ride to hell.
I agree that the globe doesn't have the political will to enact harsh enough laws to really impact climate change. It has become too politicized at this point. I do disagree that civilization will die. When there is massive drought and food shortages, changes will happen then. At that point it will be very real. However, we have way to much scientific knowhow and money for our species to be wiped out. I'm not saying it won't be a very different experience and a different kind of life but we're too smart to die off. We may lose the ability to produce food at massive scale but not at small scale. I don't even think we'll get to this point in this century. But we likely will at some point. Maybe we'll do better the second time around with a more sustainable global population.
> civilisation would be over long before then anyway
What are you even talking about? If you are truly worried about climate change then this hyperbole reflects poorly on your cause.
What are you even talking about? If you are truly worried about climate change then this hyperbole reflects poorly on your cause.
> Let's get real and either do something or enjoy the ride to hell.
Easy for anyone not on the Indian sub-continent to say: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/3-4/3-4-11/figure...
Easy for anyone not on the Indian sub-continent to say: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/3-4/3-4-11/figure...
"Even if we were, net zero by 2070 (the optimistic outcome here!?) would be pointless, civilisation would be over long before then anyway."
Why?
Even with every worst case szenario of continous droughts and floods and loss of some islands and coastal land etc.
We could grow everything we need in (automated) greenhouses.
Only if the transistion chaos leads to all out nuclear war, but that is not really a fixed thing.
Why?
Even with every worst case szenario of continous droughts and floods and loss of some islands and coastal land etc.
We could grow everything we need in (automated) greenhouses.
Only if the transistion chaos leads to all out nuclear war, but that is not really a fixed thing.
Civlisation will survive, in one shape or the other, but some countries could be totally screwed, others badly damaged. Its possible to imagine that political system crumbles, liberal democracy is gone, and the label is somewhat justified.
We are talking about most of bangladesh underwater and about 1 billion refugees globally in a poor scenario. Todays migration problems will pale in comparison. Many if them will die violently.
Nothing we've done so far indicates to me that we can quickly organise global rollout of hundred million automated greenhouses to people that cannot posssibly pay for them. Or to build largest damns in human history.
Even when we can afford to pay for infrastructure, in UK its taking us 40 years to build 1 line of rail, connecting two biggest cities, and its going to cost roughly as mich as the moon programm did.
We are talking about most of bangladesh underwater and about 1 billion refugees globally in a poor scenario. Todays migration problems will pale in comparison. Many if them will die violently.
Nothing we've done so far indicates to me that we can quickly organise global rollout of hundred million automated greenhouses to people that cannot posssibly pay for them. Or to build largest damns in human history.
Even when we can afford to pay for infrastructure, in UK its taking us 40 years to build 1 line of rail, connecting two biggest cities, and its going to cost roughly as mich as the moon programm did.
The same UK had its CO2 emissions per capita peak in 1973 and lowered that number by over 45% since then.
Sure, some of that happened through offshoring, but still - it's nothing to sneer at.
Sure, some of that happened through offshoring, but still - it's nothing to sneer at.
What you are referring to is production-based CO2 accounting, whereas we really should be taking consumption-based CO2 metric.
No doubt progress has been made, but it's a fraction of what it should be. Uk had a chance to invest in nuclear power and didn't, has poor quality housing / insulation resulting in a lot of unnecessary CO2 emissions and money wasted on heating, and has a stupid law that banned large (read: economical) wind turbines!
No doubt progress has been made, but it's a fraction of what it should be. Uk had a chance to invest in nuclear power and didn't, has poor quality housing / insulation resulting in a lot of unnecessary CO2 emissions and money wasted on heating, and has a stupid law that banned large (read: economical) wind turbines!
What about Hinkley Point C? Sure, financially the results so far are terrible, but so are other such projects in Europe.
It's good in the environmental seance, but what I meant was:
in the 80's Uk had a chance to invest in nuclear to become like France, almost entirely nuclear-powered. Instead the skills needed to build nuclear power-plants have been lost, and now even replacing existing few reactors is a great challenge.
in the 80's Uk had a chance to invest in nuclear to become like France, almost entirely nuclear-powered. Instead the skills needed to build nuclear power-plants have been lost, and now even replacing existing few reactors is a great challenge.
"Civlisation will survive, in one shape or the other"
Yes, that was my point.
That the current path is not shiny, I very much agree. But I just disagree to the "we are all doomed" mindset. That just reinforces the dark szenario.
We are not doomed, but yes, we have to start today acting in a serious way. And this is not really happening.
Yes, that was my point.
That the current path is not shiny, I very much agree. But I just disagree to the "we are all doomed" mindset. That just reinforces the dark szenario.
We are not doomed, but yes, we have to start today acting in a serious way. And this is not really happening.
> Even if we were, net zero by 2070 (the optimistic outcome here!?) would be pointless, civilisation would be over long before then anyway.
The cause of fighting climate change is harmed by hyperbolic arguments like this.
The cause of fighting climate change is harmed by hyperbolic arguments like this.
Adding food storage to countries where that capability doesn't exist is a huge multiplier in their agronomic efficiency. There is some excellent discussion of this in the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" which discusses how these forces shaped the changes in human civilizations.
I'm a bit loathe to mention this, but it should be pointed out that GG&S has a really bad reputation among many academics as fatally flawed analysis [1,2,3,4,5,6]. It makes all sorts of methodological, factual, and theoretical errors that undermine the entire argument.
But rather than make anyone go through the rather verbose things I linked, a simple example demonstrates the point: The core of Diamond's argument is that geographical factors determined the course of world affairs between approx. 1600-1900. Not the hundreds of millennia before, nor at any point in the future, only those 300 years. That's a weird argument to make about factors that have essentially always existed and presumably always applied. Even if we accept everything uncritically, the result is a pretty terrible "grand theory" that can only justify things post-hoc.
[1] https://www.livinganthropologically.com/eric-wolf-europe-peo...
[2] https://louisproyect.org/2009/04/24/jim-blaut-on-jared-diamo...
[3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054276
[4] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/guns-germs-an...
[5] https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2vf565/myths_of... <--- Despite being reddit, it's actually credible and a good introduction to Restall's 7 myths
[6] https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490 <--- Despite being a published article, this infamous paper's commentary is on the same informal level as most of these.
But rather than make anyone go through the rather verbose things I linked, a simple example demonstrates the point: The core of Diamond's argument is that geographical factors determined the course of world affairs between approx. 1600-1900. Not the hundreds of millennia before, nor at any point in the future, only those 300 years. That's a weird argument to make about factors that have essentially always existed and presumably always applied. Even if we accept everything uncritically, the result is a pretty terrible "grand theory" that can only justify things post-hoc.
[1] https://www.livinganthropologically.com/eric-wolf-europe-peo...
[2] https://louisproyect.org/2009/04/24/jim-blaut-on-jared-diamo...
[3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054276
[4] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/guns-germs-an...
[5] https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2vf565/myths_of... <--- Despite being reddit, it's actually credible and a good introduction to Restall's 7 myths
[6] https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490 <--- Despite being a published article, this infamous paper's commentary is on the same informal level as most of these.
Just to jump on this: Guns Germs and Steel seems like it's not an isolated incident for Jared Diamond's less-than-ethical process.
https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2009/04/22/new_guinea_...
Some things that do not show up in Guns, germs and steel:
- Syphilis may have a new world origin.
- The most productive crop is the potato, a crop of new world origin.
- The Inca farmed guinea pigs. These are a very viable farm animal.
- The Mapuche did not have guns, germs or steel yet, they defeated the Spanish.
- The Inca could have defeated the Spanish. They were encountered after a civil war where the nobility was purged. The Inca nobility knew how to run the empire.
- Syphilis may have a new world origin.
- The most productive crop is the potato, a crop of new world origin.
- The Inca farmed guinea pigs. These are a very viable farm animal.
- The Mapuche did not have guns, germs or steel yet, they defeated the Spanish.
- The Inca could have defeated the Spanish. They were encountered after a civil war where the nobility was purged. The Inca nobility knew how to run the empire.
... Those seem like pretty tiny nitpicks in the context of the wider argument to me.
The central point of his book - that there was far more geographic luck involved in European dominance than is popularly understood - holds just fine with all those points you made.
Good points though.
The central point of his book - that there was far more geographic luck involved in European dominance than is popularly understood - holds just fine with all those points you made.
Good points though.
Okay. But I'm having a hard time connecting the dots between the way in which crop storage amplifies the agronomic output of a group, and the points you raise.
If you're just trying to point out that "Guns, Germs, and Steel" isn't an all inclusive guide to the rise of civilization, or that different people may have made different choices in their analysis, okay I get that too. Every book is just a single voice in the choir of a genre.
Is that what you're trying to say? That you didn't like the book?
If you're just trying to point out that "Guns, Germs, and Steel" isn't an all inclusive guide to the rise of civilization, or that different people may have made different choices in their analysis, okay I get that too. Every book is just a single voice in the choir of a genre.
Is that what you're trying to say? That you didn't like the book?
I like the book as well as the 3 part documentary with the same name. I think it presents a fair perspective of world history.
I agree with the author, 99%.
I agree with the author, 99%.
To be more precise, I think the technological advantage made a difference, but the role of Guns and Steel are overrated. European logistics and communications were in my opinion more important than Guns and Steel. Also:
1) Conquest was achieved with the help of local allies, sometimes in the order of hundreds of thousands.
2) A significant part of the conquest was achieved by fighting small nations one at a time rather than a unified force.
1) Conquest was achieved with the help of local allies, sometimes in the order of hundreds of thousands.
2) A significant part of the conquest was achieved by fighting small nations one at a time rather than a unified force.
The problem with Guns, Germs, and Steel is that it doesn't really comport with the evidence we've gained from archaeology and anthropology in the 20 years since it was written. Or even what was generally accepted within the field when it was written. And if you follow Jared Diamond's other books and commentary since the initial publication, he's made it quite clear that he is going to dismiss any evidence that doesn't comport with his theories rather than adjusting his theories to match evidence, especially as we come to realize that our interpretations of primary sources and physical evidence may have historically been biased and incorrect.
As a historical note, anthropology originally develops in the 18th and 19th centuries as a curiosity about how the great empires (especially Britain) came to be great, and was generally intertwined with a desire to justify the rule over, enslavement of, or even extermination of lesser peoples. The notion that Western Europeans were superior to everyone else was an unquestioned axiom. It's only in the mid-20th century that this inherent racism starts to squeeze out of the field academically, but in the popular culture, it tends to still remain--and books like Guns, Germs, and Steel work against the goal of removing the racism from our humanities.
As someone who is interested in Pre-Columbian Americas, I will attest that the the history is actually quite fascinating. It really does challenge all of the traditional notions of anthropology, more so than any place in the Old World. A much better book is Charles Mann's 1491, which highlights what newer research has concluded about Pre-Columbian Americas.
As a historical note, anthropology originally develops in the 18th and 19th centuries as a curiosity about how the great empires (especially Britain) came to be great, and was generally intertwined with a desire to justify the rule over, enslavement of, or even extermination of lesser peoples. The notion that Western Europeans were superior to everyone else was an unquestioned axiom. It's only in the mid-20th century that this inherent racism starts to squeeze out of the field academically, but in the popular culture, it tends to still remain--and books like Guns, Germs, and Steel work against the goal of removing the racism from our humanities.
As someone who is interested in Pre-Columbian Americas, I will attest that the the history is actually quite fascinating. It really does challenge all of the traditional notions of anthropology, more so than any place in the Old World. A much better book is Charles Mann's 1491, which highlights what newer research has concluded about Pre-Columbian Americas.
I've read 1491 and enjoyed it immensely. And I understand Jared's cherry picking which is not unlike that of Malcom Gladwell.
That said, cherry picked or not, the conjectures they come up with (both of them), are often thought provoking and lead to additional research for me.
In relation to the reference I made to the Gate's article that crop storage is a performance enhancer for agronomic cultures, is strongly supported by 1491 as well. Mann's discussion of the development of Maize as a food crop, with its ability to be stored for long periods, gave those cultures such as the Olmec greater resiliency against drought and famine. Two conditions which ravage south Saharan Africa today.
That said, cherry picked or not, the conjectures they come up with (both of them), are often thought provoking and lead to additional research for me.
In relation to the reference I made to the Gate's article that crop storage is a performance enhancer for agronomic cultures, is strongly supported by 1491 as well. Mann's discussion of the development of Maize as a food crop, with its ability to be stored for long periods, gave those cultures such as the Olmec greater resiliency against drought and famine. Two conditions which ravage south Saharan Africa today.
> Syphilis may have a new world origin.
Smallpox, measles, bubonic plague, whooping cough are all way scarier than syphilis.
> The most productive crop is the potato,
The thesis of Guns, Germs, and Steel was Europe's east-west orientation allowed varieties domesticated in one place to easily grow in another. If different varieties of potatoes grow differently at different latitudes (I don't know, I'm not an expert), then it doesn't really matter how productive a crop the potato is. You may also be basing this on more modern potato varieties.
> The Inca farmed guinea pigs.
Guinea pigs are pretty small. The Inca didn't have horses, only llamas. Horses were militarily very important. Look at how much trouble the Plains Indians gave the US government, relative to their numbers. They only acquired horses after Europeans came to the New World and adapted their culture and ways around them very rapidly.
> The Mapuche did not have guns, germs or steel yet, they defeated the Spanish.
After initially being defeated, acquiring guns, steel, and horses from the Spanish and then rebelling against them.[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War#Campaigns_of_Caupol...
Smallpox, measles, bubonic plague, whooping cough are all way scarier than syphilis.
> The most productive crop is the potato,
The thesis of Guns, Germs, and Steel was Europe's east-west orientation allowed varieties domesticated in one place to easily grow in another. If different varieties of potatoes grow differently at different latitudes (I don't know, I'm not an expert), then it doesn't really matter how productive a crop the potato is. You may also be basing this on more modern potato varieties.
> The Inca farmed guinea pigs.
Guinea pigs are pretty small. The Inca didn't have horses, only llamas. Horses were militarily very important. Look at how much trouble the Plains Indians gave the US government, relative to their numbers. They only acquired horses after Europeans came to the New World and adapted their culture and ways around them very rapidly.
> The Mapuche did not have guns, germs or steel yet, they defeated the Spanish.
After initially being defeated, acquiring guns, steel, and horses from the Spanish and then rebelling against them.[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War#Campaigns_of_Caupol...
> The thesis of Guns, Germs, and Steel was Europe's east-west orientation allowed varieties domesticated in one place to easily grow in another.
It's worth noting that despite the east-west orientation of Eurasia, there is quite little evidence of technology and agriculture actually being shared between the Mediterranean and Chinese origins, especially if you restrict yourself to the traditional origin-of-civilization innovations such as agriculture itself, pottery, metallurgy. By contrast, the Americas show a great deal more transmission along its north-south axis, with maize (from Mesoamerica) almost completely supplanting native North American domesticants, pottery appearing to come from the Amazon rainforest, and metallurgy arriving from the Andes.
It's worth noting that despite the east-west orientation of Eurasia, there is quite little evidence of technology and agriculture actually being shared between the Mediterranean and Chinese origins, especially if you restrict yourself to the traditional origin-of-civilization innovations such as agriculture itself, pottery, metallurgy. By contrast, the Americas show a great deal more transmission along its north-south axis, with maize (from Mesoamerica) almost completely supplanting native North American domesticants, pottery appearing to come from the Amazon rainforest, and metallurgy arriving from the Andes.
Didn't a lot of things from Asia come to the Mediterranean to become omnipresent things? E.g. oranges, lemons, rice.
Isn't wheat itself something that spread both ways from the middle East?
Isn't wheat itself something that spread both ways from the middle East?
Wheat, barley, lentils, peas, chickpeas.
Goats, sheep, pig...
Most of those come from the fertile crescent.
Goats, sheep, pig...
Most of those come from the fertile crescent.
For all intents and purposes, I equate the Fertile Crescent with the Mediterranean world. The big divide I'm talking about is crossing from China across the variety of deserts to reach Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean.
> there is quite little evidence of technology and agriculture actually being shared between the Mediterranean and Chinese origins
You mean apart from (just off the top of my head) gunpowder, paper, the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, stirrups, and pasta/noodles?
You mean apart from (just off the top of my head) gunpowder, paper, the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, stirrups, and pasta/noodles?
> If different varieties of potatoes grow differently at different latitudes (I don't know, I'm not an expert), then it doesn't really matter how productive a crop the potato is.
The introduction of the potato reshaped Europe and boosted European population by 25%. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xROmDsULcLE
> The Inca didn't have horses, only llamas. Horses were militarily very important.
The horse is a valuable animal given a favorable terrain. But with elevations such as the Andes, a horse is not as useful. And wheels are a similar story.
Horses were useless in the Battle of Ollantaytambo, where the Inca used terraces to their advantage, but proved very useful in the defense of Lima (a coastal city) against the forces of general Quizquiz.
> After initially being defeated, acquiring guns, steel, and horses from the Spanish and then rebelling against them.[1]
The Mapuche did not "acquire" guns or steel. They could not manufacture them, but they became aware of them and developed techniques against them.
They knew harquebuses were not waterproof, and if they would prefer to engage during rainy weather. They knew that trying to pierce through steel was ineffective, so they prefered to stun.
They also became aware of the usage of cattle and they frequently raided cattle and set structures on fire.
The introduction of the potato reshaped Europe and boosted European population by 25%. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xROmDsULcLE
> The Inca didn't have horses, only llamas. Horses were militarily very important.
The horse is a valuable animal given a favorable terrain. But with elevations such as the Andes, a horse is not as useful. And wheels are a similar story.
Horses were useless in the Battle of Ollantaytambo, where the Inca used terraces to their advantage, but proved very useful in the defense of Lima (a coastal city) against the forces of general Quizquiz.
> After initially being defeated, acquiring guns, steel, and horses from the Spanish and then rebelling against them.[1]
The Mapuche did not "acquire" guns or steel. They could not manufacture them, but they became aware of them and developed techniques against them.
They knew harquebuses were not waterproof, and if they would prefer to engage during rainy weather. They knew that trying to pierce through steel was ineffective, so they prefered to stun.
They also became aware of the usage of cattle and they frequently raided cattle and set structures on fire.
> The introduction of the potato reshaped Europe and boosted European population by 25%.
I think you missed the parent’s explicit point or I missed your point. The parent wasn’t saying potatoes aren’t efficient; only that they didn’t spread widely throughout the new world due to geographic factors.
As for the rest of your post, I’m really not sure what point you’re making by focusing on the Inca. Specifically what about Diamond’s thesis are you refuting? Note that I’m not partial to “Guns, Germs, and Steel”; I just want to understand the criticism better.
I think you missed the parent’s explicit point or I missed your point. The parent wasn’t saying potatoes aren’t efficient; only that they didn’t spread widely throughout the new world due to geographic factors.
As for the rest of your post, I’m really not sure what point you’re making by focusing on the Inca. Specifically what about Diamond’s thesis are you refuting? Note that I’m not partial to “Guns, Germs, and Steel”; I just want to understand the criticism better.
The GP simply made a mistake. Potatoes can't grow in hot equatorial climates and never made the jump to the north. Two more American crops are essentially as productive as potatoes and did spread widely before Europeans. Sweet potatoes were grown as far north as Mexico / the Gulf and Maize was growing from Canada down all the way through Argentina.
Potatoes were not a panamerican crop, but they were grown in Spain and the British Isles as soon as they were introduced.
The Inca had a population of 10,000,000, and warehouses with surplus food that could sustain the empire for over 10 years.
The Inca had a population of 10,000,000, and warehouses with surplus food that could sustain the empire for over 10 years.
I think this is consistent with Diamond’s thesis—the New World didn’t have “guns, germs, and steel” because important developments (like potato agriculture) remained localized. But again, it’s not clear to me if your goal is to criticize Diamond’s thesis or not.
I’m pretty sure ggs mentioned the new world origin of syphilis and guinea pig agriculture. Specifically regarding syphilis, Diamond’s argument was that the transmission of germs was largely asymmetrical due to the much more extensive experience of old world civilizations with respect to animal husbandry. Diamond didn’t claim that there were no new world diseases.
Industrial agriculture has plenty more problems than just cow farts and carbon dioxide released from disturbed soil. Still on the vein of CO₂ emissions there's the large amounts of industrial machinery, vehicles and other such things that are powered by fossil fuels and release large amounts of CO₂.
Then on the vein of soils, we're actually running out of arable soil. Soil erosion is a huge problem around the world and industrial farming is a large part of the problem. Farm plots are never left to fallow and replenish, all nutrients and organic matter are stripped out and replaced with liquid chemical fertilizers, that run off the fields and pollute waterways.
Not to mention, fertilizers, globally, phosphate reserves are beginning to deplete. At some point in the next 50-100 years, we'll have come close to completely running out. Industrial agriculture is heavily dependent on phosphorous.
https://foodprint.org/issues/how-industrial-agriculture-affe...
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/industrial-agricultural-polluti...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus
Then on the vein of soils, we're actually running out of arable soil. Soil erosion is a huge problem around the world and industrial farming is a large part of the problem. Farm plots are never left to fallow and replenish, all nutrients and organic matter are stripped out and replaced with liquid chemical fertilizers, that run off the fields and pollute waterways.
Not to mention, fertilizers, globally, phosphate reserves are beginning to deplete. At some point in the next 50-100 years, we'll have come close to completely running out. Industrial agriculture is heavily dependent on phosphorous.
https://foodprint.org/issues/how-industrial-agriculture-affe...
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/industrial-agricultural-polluti...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus
You have almost all of this backwards. The more "industrial" the farm, the more likely they are to employ the precision methods to address the issues you raise. Talk to any major farmer and they will tell you all about how nutrients are managed down to the square foot or smaller to reduce waste application. The tech that makes no-till planting viable, which is one of the most important ways to reduce erosion and increase sequestration is being adopted by the biggest players first. Advances in no-till and pesticide technology are reducing the number of tractor passes per field per year dramatically.
Really? Source? One of the most comprehensive study on the topic (1), says:
"Our food system has put the focus on short-term production and profit rather than long-term environmental sustainability. The modern agricultural system has resulted in huge increases in productivity, holding off the risk of famine in many parts of the world but, at the same time, is based on monocultures, genetically modified crops, and the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides that undermine long-term sustainability. Food production accounts for 70 per cent of all freshwater withdrawals and 80 per cent of deforestation, while soil, the basis for global food security, is being contaminated, degraded, and eroded in many areas, resulting in long-term declines in productivity."
USCUSA isn't in love with industrial farming either (2):
"Monoculture degrades soil structure and leaves it more vulnerable to erosion, resulting in costs for soil replacement, cleanup, and lost farmland value."
Maybe major farmers aren't the most objective not most qualified group of people to assess the sustainability and [unpaid-for] externalities of their output?
(1) https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/documents/2017-09/...
(2) https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-industrial-agr...
"Our food system has put the focus on short-term production and profit rather than long-term environmental sustainability. The modern agricultural system has resulted in huge increases in productivity, holding off the risk of famine in many parts of the world but, at the same time, is based on monocultures, genetically modified crops, and the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides that undermine long-term sustainability. Food production accounts for 70 per cent of all freshwater withdrawals and 80 per cent of deforestation, while soil, the basis for global food security, is being contaminated, degraded, and eroded in many areas, resulting in long-term declines in productivity."
USCUSA isn't in love with industrial farming either (2):
"Monoculture degrades soil structure and leaves it more vulnerable to erosion, resulting in costs for soil replacement, cleanup, and lost farmland value."
Maybe major farmers aren't the most objective not most qualified group of people to assess the sustainability and [unpaid-for] externalities of their output?
(1) https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/documents/2017-09/...
(2) https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-industrial-agr...
Both of the links you provided are to political action groups.
It's like linking either the NRA or Everytown/Moms Demand/March For Our Lives (they rebrand a lot) "studies" on gun control.
Both have very clear objectives, and are quite happy to twist -- or sometimes outright fabricate[1]! -- data and facts.
[1] https://massshootingtracker.org
It's like linking either the NRA or Everytown/Moms Demand/March For Our Lives (they rebrand a lot) "studies" on gun control.
Both have very clear objectives, and are quite happy to twist -- or sometimes outright fabricate[1]! -- data and facts.
[1] https://massshootingtracker.org
If you're going to dismiss one of the most comprehensive bodies of work on the subject (or, I'd guess any UN initiatives), you can provide your own sources?
> If you're going to dismiss one of the most comprehensive bodies of work on the subject.
Creationists have some of the most comprehensive bodies of work on evolution.
Doesn't mean that they are right.
The NRA is a political organization. I do not trust any data they collect, nor any studies they produce, because their job is to advocate for a specific set of policies.
Bloomberg's various anti-gun groups are political organizations. I do not trust any data they collect, nor any studies they produce, either.
For precisely the same reason.
Personally, I think that climate change is a huge problem.
But credibility is a scarce resource these days.
Creationists have some of the most comprehensive bodies of work on evolution.
Doesn't mean that they are right.
The NRA is a political organization. I do not trust any data they collect, nor any studies they produce, because their job is to advocate for a specific set of policies.
Bloomberg's various anti-gun groups are political organizations. I do not trust any data they collect, nor any studies they produce, either.
For precisely the same reason.
Personally, I think that climate change is a huge problem.
But credibility is a scarce resource these days.
All organizations are not created equal. Do you really distrust the NRA and farming studies from the UN to the same extent? For me that sounds very black and white.
You didn't just write that the UN is a "political action group" and compared it to the NRA?
This is the group that put China as the chair of it's Human rights council.
If true, that is absolutely hilariously sad.
Which arguably makes the NRA look reasonable in comparison.
And what do you think the UN is then?
I should clarify that my perspective is coming from a strictly American point of view, where only 15% of crop ground is irrigated, and the percentage of owner-operated land is around 60%.
To be honest I don't even know how to begin sourcing the claims you are asking about. Do I need a source to tell you that over-applying fertilizer and pesticides is expensive? So much so that it is a very real risk to find yourself in a situation where the sum costs of your inputs can easily overshadow the yield of a field on a bad year? Do I need a source to say that farmers want to avoid that situation, and that those with the means invest heavily to do exactly that?
The other point, around sustainability of soil quality is one of the most common misconceptions I see on sites like this. There seems to be this idea that there's some boogeyman hiding on the 20 year horizon that we are headed towards because of our extraction from the soil. The truth is that you don't have to wait that long at all. Everyone knows a neighbor or friend of a friend that got sloppy with crop rotations, or waterway maintenance or nutrient deficiencies. Its not some unpaid externality. You don't get away with it for long – it costs you dearly when it's your own land and it only takes a few years.
To be honest I don't even know how to begin sourcing the claims you are asking about. Do I need a source to tell you that over-applying fertilizer and pesticides is expensive? So much so that it is a very real risk to find yourself in a situation where the sum costs of your inputs can easily overshadow the yield of a field on a bad year? Do I need a source to say that farmers want to avoid that situation, and that those with the means invest heavily to do exactly that?
The other point, around sustainability of soil quality is one of the most common misconceptions I see on sites like this. There seems to be this idea that there's some boogeyman hiding on the 20 year horizon that we are headed towards because of our extraction from the soil. The truth is that you don't have to wait that long at all. Everyone knows a neighbor or friend of a friend that got sloppy with crop rotations, or waterway maintenance or nutrient deficiencies. Its not some unpaid externality. You don't get away with it for long – it costs you dearly when it's your own land and it only takes a few years.
I’d be keen to see some supporting links for this?
> cow farts
It's ironic because the way to build topsoil and reverse desertification (which captures carbon) is just well managed grazing.
It's ironic because the way to build topsoil and reverse desertification (which captures carbon) is just well managed grazing.
Glad to see this, a great related TED talk by Allan Savory that introduces why this is true can be found here https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI
Note that many experts have serious reservations about Savory's claims.
A couple good summaries:
http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/244566/...
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-0...
A couple good summaries:
http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/244566/...
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-0...
It is weird that there is this symbiotic relationship between environmentalists and industry.
Not at all.
In the nonprofit sector, the term "sustainable" is a euphemism for "can keep doing it" or "financially sustainable."
If a group wants to retain it's privileges (say the banks) it can feed back 1% of its profits to buy politicians off year after year. Campaign finance spending limits just make it cheap.
Ordinary people who want to change the status quo to say, fight corruption or just simply survive the next century in the face of climate change, might expect to fight for 30 years to change the system and face the certainty of falling into despair in that time.
If anybody can find powerful allies they make it much more powerful than they can accomplish "something" even if it isn't what they set out to do.
In the nonprofit sector, the term "sustainable" is a euphemism for "can keep doing it" or "financially sustainable."
If a group wants to retain it's privileges (say the banks) it can feed back 1% of its profits to buy politicians off year after year. Campaign finance spending limits just make it cheap.
Ordinary people who want to change the status quo to say, fight corruption or just simply survive the next century in the face of climate change, might expect to fight for 30 years to change the system and face the certainty of falling into despair in that time.
If anybody can find powerful allies they make it much more powerful than they can accomplish "something" even if it isn't what they set out to do.
It's certainly bad for Monsanto's bottom line if people eat less monocropped processed food, and more pastured meat (note this isn't an attack on GMO).
There's no toxic fertilizer, no proprietary seeds or pesticides to sell. In fact, there's pretty much nothing that you need to raise pastured animals, other than trucks and fencing.
There's no toxic fertilizer, no proprietary seeds or pesticides to sell. In fact, there's pretty much nothing that you need to raise pastured animals, other than trucks and fencing.
I feel like that's a bit of an oversimplification; better land management should also be on the forefront. Not trying to 100% utilize the land, but leave space for forests, shrubs, tall / unkempt grasses, etc.
It's not much and not helpful to industrial farming, but I'm doing my part on my own garden by creating healthy soil via composting.
Agriculture must become net carbon neutral if not negative to confront the effects of climate change. As Gates mentions, soils comprise a larger carbon reservoir than the atmosphere. A successful strategy may include the following (likely necessary but not necessarily sufficient) prongs:
- halting deforestation as quickly and entirely as possible
- transitioning to net-neutral industrial machinery and power supplies
- preserving soil health by crop rotation etc
- increasing sequestration of atmospheric carbon and improving soil health by breeding/engineering plants for higher CO2 incorporation rates
- breeding/engineering plants for other traits like water/abiotic and pest/biotic stress resilience, reduced fertilizer and nutrient requirements, etc
- human consumption habits must transition to less energy-intensive and pollution-producing foods (typically fewer animals and more plants, although the issue is complex)
- halting deforestation as quickly and entirely as possible
- transitioning to net-neutral industrial machinery and power supplies
- preserving soil health by crop rotation etc
- increasing sequestration of atmospheric carbon and improving soil health by breeding/engineering plants for higher CO2 incorporation rates
- breeding/engineering plants for other traits like water/abiotic and pest/biotic stress resilience, reduced fertilizer and nutrient requirements, etc
- human consumption habits must transition to less energy-intensive and pollution-producing foods (typically fewer animals and more plants, although the issue is complex)
I found the company helping farmers in Africa collectively build/buy silos the most surprising of these projects. As someone who spent much of my childhood in the Midwest I took for granted that silos and even co-ops would be a resource farmers would have.
This kind of talk activates my scam detectors.
It first got popular when the makers of herbicides like roundup began to advocate "no-till agriculture" which is claimed to build up carbon reserves in the soil.
We will always have claims going around that some change in soil management will sequester carbon at widely distributed sites where we can't measure it at much lower costs than not producing it to begin with (nuclear power) or sequestering it in some place where we can actually measure (inject it into a hole and measure the volume the same way you measure fuel coming out.)
That idea of spreading olvine sand on the beach is the same thing: it is so spread out you'll never prove that it worked or didn't work, but it is certain that some Enron-style trader makes money several times on it.
These sorts of scams are highly dangerous in a world where people will be attracted to "market" solutions: if there was some rule that you had to save 10 tons of carbon by replacing coal with uranium for the right to claim you saved 1 ton some other way it might be helpful.
It first got popular when the makers of herbicides like roundup began to advocate "no-till agriculture" which is claimed to build up carbon reserves in the soil.
We will always have claims going around that some change in soil management will sequester carbon at widely distributed sites where we can't measure it at much lower costs than not producing it to begin with (nuclear power) or sequestering it in some place where we can actually measure (inject it into a hole and measure the volume the same way you measure fuel coming out.)
That idea of spreading olvine sand on the beach is the same thing: it is so spread out you'll never prove that it worked or didn't work, but it is certain that some Enron-style trader makes money several times on it.
These sorts of scams are highly dangerous in a world where people will be attracted to "market" solutions: if there was some rule that you had to save 10 tons of carbon by replacing coal with uranium for the right to claim you saved 1 ton some other way it might be helpful.
Ah, I see. If it involves Roundup, then axiomatically it must be wrong. Glad to see dogma is triumphing once again.
I know this isn't real science or anything, but this video helped me better understand the issue with the soil.
It's from Bon Appétit, where Brad goes to a ranch in Texas. Jump to 9:30 for the soil bit. It goes on for a couple of minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAO1A6EdVVA
It's from Bon Appétit, where Brad goes to a ranch in Texas. Jump to 9:30 for the soil bit. It goes on for a couple of minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAO1A6EdVVA
> Bon Appétit
Easy tiger, I believe they've been cancelled, in the pejorative meme sense of the term. Perhaps warranted (or not), but controversial nonetheless.
Easy tiger, I believe they've been cancelled, in the pejorative meme sense of the term. Perhaps warranted (or not), but controversial nonetheless.
Related: see GoogleX co-founder Tom Chi's video on climate change, sustainable agriculture, etc.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyQvfaW54NU
Article: "I’m done with cow farts"
So everyone talks about cows?
Anyway, by bringing cows and all animals to lab grown meat and lab grown hard to grow plant based foods, it hopefully brings them to simple base ingredients.
Which means it can all be about the soil and we can concentrate way more exactly.
If only environmentalists actually wanted to push the future forward rather than destroying current things.
Skipping stupid ideas like changing what people will eat through campaigns and trying to stop home food waste or talking about cow farts.
So everyone talks about cows?
Anyway, by bringing cows and all animals to lab grown meat and lab grown hard to grow plant based foods, it hopefully brings them to simple base ingredients.
Which means it can all be about the soil and we can concentrate way more exactly.
If only environmentalists actually wanted to push the future forward rather than destroying current things.
Skipping stupid ideas like changing what people will eat through campaigns and trying to stop home food waste or talking about cow farts.
Regenerative farming deserves a mention here. Soil is indeed important and industrial scale farming has a negative impact on it because a lot of our modern farming practices are sacrificing soil for short term gains.
Regenerative farming restores soil as a side effect of farming more efficiently and ultimately can restore vast amounts of land with a relatively low amount of effort. There have been quite a few projects, some of which are quite large scale demonstrating this can be done. There's a bit of controversy around some of the claims but overall, there are some nice green bits of land that used to be basically desert. Whatever was done to make that so, we need more of it.
Regenerative farming restores soil as a side effect of farming more efficiently and ultimately can restore vast amounts of land with a relatively low amount of effort. There have been quite a few projects, some of which are quite large scale demonstrating this can be done. There's a bit of controversy around some of the claims but overall, there are some nice green bits of land that used to be basically desert. Whatever was done to make that so, we need more of it.
TIL The Land Institute has made progress following its long-standing vision to develop perennial crops.
https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-crops/kernza/
https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-crops/kernza/