Sweden tells its citizens to eat insects to end global warming

[Garnier Fructis]

snip

The quick response to all of this is that we aren't tunnel visioning on climate change. We're trying to address fossil fuel use, transportation, food, etc. all at once.

It's not like you can realistically have everyone working on the same aspect of the problem at once. That's just horrifyingly inefficient.

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense. If there were no humans, the planet would be rife with wildlife. The source of global warming is not cow farts. Get a grip.

You can try and make it as ridiculous sounding as you want, but methane is strong greenhouse gas acting on short timescales, and livestock produces a lot of it. That's just the reality, and that's not changed by writing 'cow farts' or by straw-manning it to be the 'source of global warming' when nobody has ever said it was more than just a part of global emissions.

[zephid]

Talk about misleading threat title.

[A dot Ham]

The quick response to all of this is that we aren't tunnel visioning on climate change. We're trying to address fossil fuel use, transportation, food, etc. all at once.

It's not like you can realistically have everyone working on the same aspect of the problem at once. That's just horrifyingly inefficient.

But no one is addressing the biggest problems. That's the issue.

Methane production from cows farting and pooping is not a significant contributing factor, not by a long shot when you consider tankers and cargo containers.

We don't have to work on the same problems necessarily but reducing the dependency on tankers and cargo ships would have huge and immediate positive results on climate change. But holla at that mighty dolla! Nobody, not even for a second, wants to quit buying the newest iphone, or the new clothes, or toys... so we are stuck.

For example Sweden is switching to insect meat instead of livestock meat.

In the US Tesla is taking the car manufacturer industry by storm with their new electric vehicles. The problem is that while that is a worthwhile endeavor it puts more cost on the consumer as electric vehicles are more expensive to buy up front. Also, if you read the articles you would see that 15 of the worlds largest tankers/cargo ships produce more pollution than all the cars in the world. Just 15, and guess what? There are THOUSANDS of these tankers/cargo ships.

[enragedgorilla]

And?
They are popular "food" in other countries, Asian nations and a few others.
Insects are just as viable a food source as a cow,wheat or potato.

Having said that...it would not be in my top 10 things to eat, only if I HAD to.
Survival has a way of getting you over the western vibe of "eww"

[Tijuana]

Inefficient land use and having a lot of cattle around together are a sizable chunk of global human emissions. It's nowhere close to fossil fuel use, but climate change is not something we can address by just going after the biggest slice of the pie.

And just because something seems ridiculous to you, doesn't mean it is. Limits on imagination =/= not possible.

How many animals do you think get concentrated around each other without mankind present? Even in the world today, there are areas where HUNDREDS of caribou run wild in packs. Animals are not the cause of global warming. If they contribute, so be it. There will always be animals on the planet. Global warming is not an issue that pre-dates mankind. Use your brain and think.

[enragedgorilla]

But no one is addressing the biggest problems. That's the issue.

Methane production from cows farting and pooping is not a significant contributing factor, not by a long shot when you consider tankers and cargo containers.

We don't have to work on the same problems necessarily but reducing the dependency on tankers and cargo ships would have huge and immediate positive results on climate change. But holla at that mighty dolla! Nobody, not even for a second, wants to quit buying the newest iphone, or the new clothes, or toys... so we are stuck.

For example Sweden is switching to insect meat instead of livestock meat.

In the US Tesla is taking the car manufacturer industry by storm with their new electric vehicles. The problem is that while that is a worthwhile endeavor it puts more cost on the consumer as electric vehicles are more expensive to buy up front. Also, if you read the articles you would see that 15 of the worlds largest tankers/cargo ships produce more pollution than all the cars in the world. Just 15, and guess what? There are THOUSANDS of these tankers/cargo ships.

Saying that sitting behind a computer keyboard....kinda of ....ironic?

[Garnier Fructis]

But no one is addressing the biggest problems. That's the issue.

Methane production from cows farting and pooping is not a significant contributing factor, not by a long shot when you consider tankers and cargo containers.

We don't have to work on the same problems necessarily but reducing the dependency on tankers and cargo ships would have huge and immediate positive results on climate change. But holla at that mighty dolla! Nobody, not even for a second, wants to quit buying the newest iphone, or the new clothes, or toys... so we are stuck.

The biggest problem, by and large, is energy generation and not cargo and we are trying to address that. Plus, the introduction of affordable electric vehicles is going to set us up to kill two birds with one stone when we switch our energy source.

Also disagree that methane from livestock is really that insignificant compared to tankers, but w/e.

[araine]

Its disgusting no matter how much they pay.

We can say the same about all that GMO crap as well

[A dot Ham]

Saying that sitting behind a computer keyboard....kinda of ....ironic?

Not sure I follow. I did say nobody. That would include myself. Smartass.

PM your address and I'll snail mail you a "fuck you" card. Though, that will cost more in greenhouse emissions than it does to say it right here.

- - - Updated - - -

The biggest problem, by and large, is energy generation and not cargo and we are trying to address that. Plus, the introduction of affordable electric vehicles is going to set us up to kill two birds with one stone when we switch our energy source.

Also disagree that methane from livestock is really that insignificant compared to tankers, but w/e.

Humans produce methane too... by that justification we should go around killing off the flatulent.

[Damajin]

Not sure I follow. I did say nobody. That would include myself. Smartass.

PM your address and I'll snail mail you a "fuck you" card. Though, that will cost more in greenhouse emissions than it does to say it right here.

- - - Updated - - -



Humans produce methane too... by that justification we should go around killing off the flatulent.

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."

[nextormento]

Inefficient land use and having a lot of cattle around together are a sizable chunk of global human emissions. It's nowhere close to fossil fuel use, but climate change is not something we can address by just going after the biggest slice of the pie.

To add to this, I'm happy that they included a panel in concrete and cement production in the Paris conference. And that industry has been busy implementing capturing, and alternative products. The focus is not just on fuels.

However, I think that inefficiencies in production are not quite that straight to cut into the debate. At least not as an attractive talking point. We know meat is inefficient. But it's a product we consume because we like it despite the inefficiencies. Just like we use blacklights in dance-floors despite them being inefficient illumination: they're just pretty cool.
We'll figure replacements in synthetic meats eventually, but we really can't shoot for maximum efficiency against our cravings. And while I realize you're not suggesting such maximums, I think some sizable amount of people interpret it like that: they're taking our cows away!

[Malachi256]

Their production has a lot lower impact than normal livestock.

I wouldn't call it a lot. This article summarizes some research, and here's the most relevant quote I could find,

Both the crickets raised on the poultry feed and the processed consumer waste converted protein roughly as well as chicken, and both groups were still considerably better compared to pigs and cows.

"Roughly as well as chicken," sounds pretty disappointing, honestly.

And being better than cows has got to be at least somewhat offset by the ability of ranchers to just graze cattle on rangeland.


I'm sure we'll figure out efficient ways to use insects for protein, and there will be niche applications that are really cool, but I doubt it's going to change things all that much.

[Garnier Fructis]

How many animals do you think get concentrated around each other without mankind present? Even in the world today, there are areas where HUNDREDS of caribou run wild in packs. Animals are not the cause of global warming. If they contribute, so be it. There will always be animals on the planet. Global warming is not an issue that pre-dates mankind. Use your brain and think.

Alright, I'll use my brain and think. Cows have a population of 1.4 billion, which is much more than they would have if they weren't domesticated and protected by us. That's a lot of extra methane that wouldn't be there if we didn't breed a whole bunch of cows.

There have always been animals. There will always be animals. But population size matters.

[Malachi256]

Nonsense. If there were no humans, the planet would be rife with wildlife. The source of global warming is not cow farts. Get a grip.

This sounds like a compelling point at first glance, but think about how much we augment our agriculture, often with fossil fuel based fertilizers. I'd strongly suspect that we have increased the overall animal biomass on the planet through our livestock agriculture, fueled by tapping into carbon sinks. Much of that carbon ultimately ends up in the atmosphere as methane and CO2.

And btw, much of the methane is cow burps. Produced by methanogenic bacteria in their complex stomachs.

[Garnier Fructis]

Humans produce methane too... by that justification we should go around killing off the flatulent.

Human methane emissions, even when you count the 7 billion of us that are on earth, are essentially insignificant. We just don't produce much methane at all. Cow methane emissions are like 3 orders of magnitude higher. Because different animals produce different waste.

Humans are fine, cows are not.

[Deleted]

I would eat insects

[Lex Icon]

a little off topic but what would happen to all the cows,pigs etc. if and when we stop eating their meat?

i cant really see them living in the wild so would they then go extinct?

[Endus]

Human methane emissions, even when you count the 7 billion of us that are on earth, are essentially insignificant. We just don't produce much methane at all. Cow methane emissions are like 3 orders of magnitude higher. Because different animals produce different waste.

Humans are fine, cows are not.

Specifically, it's the process by which ruminants like cows break down fibrous cellulose, which humans just can't do (we pass it through our system). It's why cows chew their cud and have multiple stomachs.

Yes, if you're analyzing the effect on climate change, you'd have to compare the cattle population to the displaced natural population of deer and bison and so forth, but even there, cows come out significantly ahead; http://extension.psu.edu/animals/dai...rp-methane-too

[Garnier Fructis]

a little off topic but what would happen to all the cows,pigs etc. if and when we stop eating their meat?

i cant really see them living in the wild so would they then go extinct?

I doubt we'll stop eating them. It's fine if we simply collectively eat less.

[Army Dreamer]

Sweden tells its citizens to eat insects to end global warming

It is a great idea. Really. Every one who is concerned about global warming should eat insects.