Comment Re: North America (Score 1) 428
Sorry for the double post, but I just found this, discussing the bison vs modern cattle impact, with more details on the differences:
Sorry for the double post, but I just found this, discussing the bison vs modern cattle impact, with more details on the differences:
There are about 90 million domesticated cattle in the U.S. today, compared to a max of about 60 million bison in the late 18th century. So no, the methane impact is larger now from
domesticated cattle compared to bison.
Rumination emissions aren't the only methane produced by domesticated cattle. Manure lagoons are a major contributor as well, and can match the rumination methane emissions at dairies and feedlots. The methane-producing anaerobic conditions in these lagoons are not reproduced naturally by roaming bison. There are other sources of GHG emissions associated with industrial dairies and feedlots as well, like extra N2O emissions from the intensive fertilization of crops to feed the cattle. This fertilization wasn't happening for grazing bison.
In addition, natural grazing is climate beneficial, as it regenerates rangeland grasses and maintains healthy soil, making the rangeland a better CO2 sink. Domesticated cattle only graze for a fraction of their life before heading to the feedlot or dairy.
The fact is that domesticated cattle are contributing to methane emissions in the U.S., and by virtue of being domesticated, that methane is attributable to human activity. There are (and were) lots of natural GHG sources, but the domesticated cattle industry is an area where we can decrease methane emissions. So I'm in favor of any mechanism that will help us push those emissions down.
There 3.5 billion domesticated ruminants worldwide, compared to 75 million wild ruminants. There are about a billion cows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Also, cows emit more methane than bison:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
The historical CH4 levels show that current levels are far higher than they were:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... annual average for methane,in at least 800,000 years.
Either way, climate change is real and cows play a significant role. Anything that reduces the climate impact of meat production is a good things as far as I'm concerned.
I agree with nearly all of what you say - nuclear is a great option and I'm always frustrated that's it's not a larger player in the U.S. energy landscape. However, the U.S. government is working to both reduce natural gas emissions and get people off of fossil fuels. Most evident is the solar tax incentive, incentives for using renewables, incentives for electric cars, and strong regulations on methane emissions across the oil and gas industry. I wish pushing nuclear power was part of that portfolio.
Except that the guy was smuggling HFCs, not CFCs (like Freon). HFCs are regulated because they are powerful greenhouse gases. Your argument about Freon may be true for Freon, but HFCs will have a significant global warming impact without regulation.
The charge is for smuggling HFCs, not CFCs. HFCs do not deplete ozone, and are replacements for ozone-depleting CFCs. However, HFCs are major greenhouse gases, thousands of times more powerful than CO2. Without controls, they are projected to have a significant global warming impact (0.28-0.44C by 2100), detailed here:
There's a bit of interesting parallel (or antiparallel) to US transportation in the mid-late 1800's. Then the common form of transport was horse (or horse and wagon), but transitioned to train. So the control of travel went from the individual traveler to a conductor and railway organization that defined schedules and managed safety. In the late 1800's/early 1900's cars became popular and the control of travel went back to the individual. Now we're talking about control shifting back to a more centralized operator, software developed/maintained by a central organization (or a few companies).
One important aspect, which of course everyone talks about: when control is centralized, so is liability. How do we handle liability in this case?
You mean you *don't* stack your hard drives vertically on their short edges?
From a strength-to-weight ratio, which is a big part of the design considerations, is it really superior to aluminum, or titanium, or other metals? That may be very dependent upon structural design of course. If I were a spacecraft manufacturer they'd need to convince me that they can achieve the same structural rigidity for the same (or lower) mass. One potential benefit that they mention: RF can pass through the wood structure, which might make for simpler antenna designs.
which reminds me of this alarming demonstration from Harvard of evolution and developing resistance to things that should kill you:
It's funny that you mention accuracy. Up here in MA, my area was predicted to get 6-10" as of Monday morning's forecast (for Tuesday). The forecasters were seemingly quite confident, enough so that most schools in my area declared a snow day by Monday afternoon. Monday evening rolled around and the forecast dropped to 1-3". As of this afternoon, my back yard has maybe 1" of snow.
This was a wasted snow day. That said, snow days a special for kids - a surprise gift that they should be able to enjoy. Let them play! As our school superintendent declared on our first snow day after COVID, when there was chatter the district would convert snow days to remote learning days: "sleep in, play in the snow, watch a holiday movie, and most importantly, take a day off of your computer".
Certainly not arguing against it, just trying to find the solution with least environmental impact, and noting that it's a bit more complicated than it may seem (or at least seemed to me). I'm all for charging for the bags, with the proceeds ideally going to environmental efforts. I think I'll keep going with my reusable-but-plastic-based bags, and keep an eye out for cheap non-plastic based ones to replace mine as I wear them out.
This is the sort of study I'm referring to:
https://stanfordmag.org/conten...
There's lots of debate about this, and I'm not sure which way it really goes. In short, seems like ~139 uses and the reusable bag breaks even with plastic bags. I use them once a week for grocery shopping so that's ~3 years. I think mine last more than 3 years typically, but not by a lot - maybe 5-6 years, albeit very material dependent.
Agreed! Where I live (northeast U.S.) there's a store that has a brand called "Nature's Promise", which is higher-end produce, usually organically grown. Their fruit (grapes, berries) is very good but sold in stiff plastic containers that are heavy and annoying to store in the fridge. Kind of an odd juxtaposition of appearing "natural" (organic) but not environmentally conscious.
Agreed, I haven't been using them for a long time, and it wasn't a tough transition. I use "reusable" bags, some of which are nice because they're insulated, but I have seen some studies that say such bags may be worse in the long term because they have proportionally more plastic per use. As I wear out these, I'm looking for alternatives (canvas?) that may be better.
The only thing I miss about plastic bags is that they're handy around the house for a second use to bag up smelly expired food, throw out a dead mouse from the attic, pick up after the dog, or other uses where you just need to quickly seal something up and throw it out. I used to have a glut of them in the house, but no more. I'll survive.
This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian
