Philosophical Vegan Forum

Short addition:

The traditional estimates for 100 years, which are used in quantifications of CO2 equivalency, are equal for estimate to estimates the effects of methane in a 20-40 year time frame (variability applies), meaning 2050. The importancy of methane is bigger on before 2050 and less important afterwards compared to traditional estimates for 100 years.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:41 am We might care about 2050 and after. Therefore, actually both is import. There might be hope for negative emissions in the future, but this is still an uncertain bet.

The thing is that the catastrophic effects begin to take over very soon (cities flooding, agricultural productivity/regions changing), and beyond that the additional negative effects diminish.
If we can, globally, get policy in order to be able to stave off those immediate concerns it's a very good bet that additional effects after 2050 will be mitigated by the same political will. Betting on technological advancement where there's actually an incentive to carbon capture is also a pretty safe bet if we can give it a couple decades to work. Near-term changes are what really matter because they give us time.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:41 amThe addition of CO2 to the atmosphere by methane is true for fossil methane but not for ruminant methane. The C is taken from the food, which is taken from CO2 out of the air by photosynthesis. Like human breath itself is carbon neutral as the CO2 has been taken out of the atmosphere.

That's a good point.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:41 amThe role model argument is as applicable for energy production and other life style choices, if it is for food. One of the main reasons for disagreement in my view is, on what is achievable.

It's like the micro-ingredients argument. (https://www.peta.org/living/food/making ... ucts-food/)
A lifestyle model of, for example, not showering, isn't really good outreach (beyond being stinky putting people off). Most people would prefer to forgo showers or take them very infrequently vs. taking cold ones which is profoundly unpleasant unless you have the mentality of a monk (look at the hygiene differences in places of the world where hot showers aren't an option).

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:41 amIf you life in an own home in a rural area, the biggest impact probably is not food and these other things are changeable, too.

Not heating or cooling your home seems like a non-starter, and that only covers part of it.
You could argue for moving, but real estate being how it is doesn't always make renting a flat a financially viable option since they're only built close to city centers and NIMBYs block high density housing in the suburbs.

There are strong arguments for VOTING, but that's an easy thing to do for most people and it only goes so far.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:41 amTo assess this for the general public one need to consider their values. I am not sure, what is more important for people. Therefore, I go for the bigger share, to estimate what is easier influenced.

That's a very naive approach; you need to look at what people are actually changing and the theoretical effect that has. People insulate their homes, but they don't forgo climate control. People install solar water heaters to take up some of the burden of heating, and even more efficient heatpump style heaters -- they don't forgo hot showers. People switch to beyond burgers -- they don't just swap burgers for a plate of beans.

Looking at the market and what people do in reality can tell you what the realistic effect of influence can do.

Ultimately the things people will do, beyond going vegan, are these one-time investments in infrastructure which are very worthwhile but limited; people have the ability to continue doing, and there's only so much you can do to insulate your home and then you're done (and not at all making the same kinds of gains as just not using energy at all).
Beyond that stuff again it comes down to voting and changing the grid; something individuals can't do much more about particularly because the ecomodernists are outnumbered by the fear-mongers.
What people can really do *every day* and on their own is cut down on animal product consumption. There's not much else that's really on that level of effect and accessibility. Recycling today is nearly useless because of the cost of sorting, minimalism and zero-waste attempts represent very little effect, etc.
Beyond voting and hoping it will make a difference and a few limited infrastructure changes you can personally invest in, reducing animal product consumption is really the only thing you can personally take charge of that has a significant effect.

It's also worth mentioning that CCS at the flu is technically fairly trivial (it's just a question of bringing it to scale). Capturing and degrading methane or nitrous oxide is nowhere near as plausible, and these emissions could continue to provide issues despite low CO2 emissions from future power generation.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:57 pm Ultimately the things people will do, beyond going vegan, are these one-time investments in infrastructure which are very worthwhile but limited; people have the ability to continue doing, and there's only so much you can do to insulate your home and then you're done (and not at all making the same kinds of gains as just not using energy at all).
Beyond that stuff again it comes down to voting and changing the grid; something individuals can't do much more about particularly because the ecomodernists are outnumbered by the fear-mongers.
What people can really do *every day* and on their own is cut down on animal product consumption. There's not much else that's really on that level of effect and accessibility. Recycling today is nearly useless because of the cost of sorting, minimalism and zero-waste attempts represent very little effect, etc.
Beyond voting and hoping it will make a difference and a few limited infrastructure changes you can personally invest in, reducing animal product consumption is really the only thing you can personally take charge of that has a significant effect.

I did not advice anyone not showering or not heating. This are clearly non cleaver suggestions. Investment in infrastructure actually is a cleaver measure but this really depends upon your conditions. If these are possible, e. g. switching the heating system, these are big impact measures. It is done only ones but last for quite a time reducing the footprint.
Beside of this are reduction in overall consumption: buying stuff, which has quite a big footprint (more than zero waste). Industry emissions are for purposes. Stop/reducing flying, driving less frequent, driving a more efficient car or even no car have big impact. I am not sure whether this is possible in the US, but in Europe you can choose your power company.

How effective one of these measures is, depends upon your livestyle. If you life are a regular flyer, do not be this anymore. If you eat a lot of meat, reduce it. Actually, we have to do everything we can do. For me personally quitting meat is a non starter, as I already did it 10 years ago. I can not reduce my footprint by this measure. (This might make the point clear.)

If one is thinking about the most effective, single measure for reducing one carbon footprint it might actually be compensating and investing. That is paying for people (in developing countries) to have more efficient energy systems and waste management (reducing methane emissions) or investing in low carbon energy systems. I know there are some downsides to this, especially that the measures sometimes fail to be additional and would have been taken anyway. For sure it is only possible, if you are affluent enough. It depends upon your conditions, what is possible.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:14 pm It's also worth mentioning that CCS at the flu is technically fairly trivial (it's just a question of bringing it to scale). Capturing and degrading methane or nitrous oxide is nowhere near as plausible, and these emissions could continue to provide issues despite low CO2 emissions from future power generation.

Methane is breaking down anyway, therefore I agree. Doing quick research I found a very recent article on nitrous oxide capturing in nature chemistry
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-019-0356-0
Actually, they are speculating about recycling it as fertilizer, which would mitigate emissions and building a nitrous cycle to make it economic.

The technology is in an early stage and the big research attention is and has been on CO2. Capture needs big investments, without inherent profit. One can hope this will be possible in 2050, but I consider it a risky bet.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:16 am Methane is breaking down anyway, therefore I agree.

The issue is really just the continuous emission.

Doing quick research I found a very recent article on nitrous oxide capturing in nature chemistry
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-019-0356-0
Actually, they are speculating about recycling it as fertilizer, which would mitigate emissions and building a nitrous cycle to make it economic.

Broken link, I'm assuming they're talking about doing this at the flu after CCS?

Found the study here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31758160

Capturing anything like this from the atmosphere is very complicated. I suppose that would be the chief argument against consumer change when it comes to agriculture: no mitigation is going to be financially viable. The grid can be changed at a large scale even to potentially make coal pretty clean, but when it comes to agriculture we can GM rice and that's pretty much it: where continuous methane output from enteric fermentation and the nitrous oxide emission from fertilization are concerned there's probably not much we can do from a global atmospheric perspective.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:16 amThe technology is in an early stage and the big research attention is and has been on CO2. Capture needs big investments, without inherent profit. One can hope this will be possible in 2050, but I consider it a risky bet.

If we don't get on top of this stuff now it's going to be pretty meaningless. However, regulation as the worst of the worst starts to happen is actually a pretty safe bet for companies.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/73656569 ... it-pay-off

Companies are willing to spend money on this for the promise of eventual payoff (in 10+ years) as they crush their competition with regulation. It may be that companies have to develop the technology first, then they'll push for regulation to stop their competition and pretty much monopolize the market (or remain competitive but have much higher profit margins as their competitors are struggling on scraps).

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:42 amBeside of this are reduction in overall consumption: buying stuff, which has quite a big footprint.

Shouldn't we be concerned about the potential economic consequences of this message?

Jebus wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:23 am

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:42 amBeside of this are reduction in overall consumption: buying stuff, which has quite a big footprint.

Shouldn't we be concerned about the potential economic consequences of this message?

The economic impact of any climate measure at scale is a reason for concern. The meat and fossil fuel industry might have some importance in the global economy. Any measure at scale will have repercussions and some balance is needed, e.g. measure of transition for farmers and fossil fuel dependent states or other industry.

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 5:43 am

Jebus wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:23 am

PhilRisk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:42 amBeside of this are reduction in overall consumption: buying stuff, which has quite a big footprint.

Shouldn't we be concerned about the potential economic consequences of this message?

The economic impact of any climate measure at scale is a reason for concern. The meat and fossil fuel industry might have some importance in the global economy. Any measure at scale will have repercussions and some balance is needed, e.g. measure of transition for farmers and fossil fuel dependent states or other industry.

Those industries are replaced by others, e.g.mock meats, and renewables. Simply buying less may be more of a fundamental impact.

Unfortunately, like many community based on belief, the vegan community is plagued by pseudoscience and manipulation of the facts. It's important to highlight the issue because one's ethics should be able to stand on truth alone, not lies. Misinformation campaigns, like those perpetuated in many "documentaries," also make us look just plain bad.

However, the actual statistics of the matter are irrelevant to me. We do know that the livestock and dairy industries contribute significantly to climate change. Continuing to use those products for our personal satisfaction makes us complicit in the biggest crisis humanity has faced. Even if the data can be a bit unreliable, it is important to promote what little we do know and not get bogged down in the actual numbers.