When the beef industry tells us that despite a large body of scientific evidence raising cattle for beef production is not bad for the climate, this is very trustworthy?! Btw: the cigarette industry also told people that smoking wasn't bad for our health decades ago. Just a matter of money and lobbying.
Did you watch the video? They said that it’s fine so long as the cattle population remains stable. A rapidly growing population disrupts the cycle and leaves excess methane (then carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere.
Still, if the global livestock herd is increasing, then surely CH4 is accumulating in the atmosphere and contributing to atmospheric warming? Similarly, wouldn't reducing livestock herds reduce CH4 emissions and mitigate the warming potential of atmospheric methane?
In Canada, cattle populations have been stable since 2010. Therefore, the CH4 produced by cows has been stable (same as in the U.S.). Thus Canadian cattle do not contribute to additional warming. This is unlike the CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels, which continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Research is developing ways to decrease CH4 emissions from cows, without affecting health and productivity of the animals. Current technologies being evaluated are achieving 10-90% reduction in CH4, and will soon be available to farmers. A decrease in CH4 emissions will lead to a decline in CH4 concentration in the atmosphere, and will help slow the warming effect. However, a decline in CH4 from ruminants will not be sufficient alone to halt global warming, as 80% of emissions are from CO2.
@@graememcelligott8874 Beef emissions depend alot on what country we are talking about. India and Africa's beef emissions are 100 times worse then American or European Beef. If everyone in the USA went vegan, emissions would only reduce by 2%. So focusing on meat emissions, even if potentially beneficial is actually ignoring the much much much bigger issue of fossil fuels.
@@novanomi3362 that's true, but my point is that IF the global atmospheric store of methane is growing, and part of that growth is from cattle farming, THEN reducing herd sizes and thereby reducing methane emissions must have a mitigating effect on GHG radiative forcing. I don't think people are "focusing" on meat to the exclusion of other sources of anthropogenic emissions, either.
How is this channel not more famous?
When the beef industry tells us that despite a large body of scientific evidence raising cattle for beef production is not bad for the climate, this is very trustworthy?! Btw: the cigarette industry also told people that smoking wasn't bad for our health decades ago. Just a matter of money and lobbying.
Did you watch the video?
They said that it’s fine so long as the cattle population remains stable. A rapidly growing population disrupts the cycle and leaves excess methane (then carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere.
Still, if the global livestock herd is increasing, then surely CH4 is accumulating in the atmosphere and contributing to atmospheric warming? Similarly, wouldn't reducing livestock herds reduce CH4 emissions and mitigate the warming potential of atmospheric methane?
In Canada, cattle populations have been stable since 2010. Therefore, the CH4 produced by cows has been stable (same as in the U.S.). Thus Canadian cattle do not contribute to additional warming. This is unlike the CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels, which continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Research is developing ways to decrease CH4 emissions from cows, without affecting health and productivity of the animals. Current technologies being evaluated are achieving 10-90% reduction in CH4, and will soon be available to farmers. A decrease in CH4 emissions will lead to a decline in CH4 concentration in the atmosphere, and will help slow the warming effect. However, a decline in CH4 from ruminants will not be sufficient alone to halt global warming, as 80% of emissions are from CO2.
the numbers of cattle are declining, we are at a 60 year low in North America currently with no sign of rebuilding yet.
@@clintellis1102 yes, but not globally from what I can find. And reducing numbers anywhere must reduce the total atmospheric store.
@@graememcelligott8874 Beef emissions depend alot on what country we are talking about. India and Africa's beef emissions are 100 times worse then American or European Beef. If everyone in the USA went vegan, emissions would only reduce by 2%. So focusing on meat emissions, even if potentially beneficial is actually ignoring the much much much bigger issue of fossil fuels.
@@novanomi3362 that's true, but my point is that IF the global atmospheric store of methane is growing, and part of that growth is from cattle farming, THEN reducing herd sizes and thereby reducing methane emissions must have a mitigating effect on GHG radiative forcing. I don't think people are "focusing" on meat to the exclusion of other sources of anthropogenic emissions, either.
So, cows bad, eat bugs? Gotcha.
They literally said that it’s not a huge deal so long as the population count remains stable. Even still it doesn’t account for very much pollution.