this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
43 points (100.0% liked)

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

157 readers
10 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
43
Your grass-fed burger isn’t better for the planet, new study finds | Grass-fed beef has no climate benefit — even when taking into account that healthy pastureland can trap carbon (wapo.st)
submitted 2 weeks ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Access options:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ptz@dubvee.org 44 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Grass-fed beef was supposed to be better for the environment? Before I gave up meat, I just assumed it was better for the cow.

[–] pimento64@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 weeks ago

I think it's better for the human, it tastes better than beef from cows that have been fed corn husks, bone meal, and cough drops.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

While I generally agree, I have seen the argument that grass will grow in thin soil where crops will not, so you can theoretically turn land that's unusable for crops into being usable for producing beef...

But that was more of a land use argument than an environmental one.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

This is literally the origin of livestock farming. And it isn't just about infertile soil or difficult terrain - it's a simple matter of scale. If you have more land than you can farm, you graze livestock on it. Livestock also acts as a super important calorie sink over the winter when you can't farm.

Then there are places like Iceland, where large scale agriculture is literally impossible, and the only way to produce food domestically is to graze sheep on the small bits of vegetation which can grow in volcanic rock.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

At a large scale you could stuff a bunch of cows in small boxes and feed them corn. Which is space efficient and government subsidised in the usa. It's probably worse for the environment because of it.

Grass fed means the cows are let out to roam free. What's better about it is that those animals are not forced to be locked in a box their whole lives

[–] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

It's better than burning down the Amazon to grow food for the cow, but then that only works if you only have as many cows as natural grassland supports.