Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghouse | Hacker News Reader

The cost to mitigate global warming is much less than the cost that humanity will bear if it isn't mitigated. This is often argued as binary: 0) doing something will destroy the economy, 1) doing nothing will destroy the world. But in reality, there is quite a bit that can be done that doesn't cost that much. The innovators require the price signal. Externalities need to be internalized before the market can solve the problem at the least-cost.

View on HN

For starters, lets feed the cows some seaweed.

IMO technology is very rapidly evolving which will drastically reduce emissions with very little negative trade-offs, and in fact, do so in an economically competitive fashion.

The EV cars don’t just emit nothing, they are also better cars in almost every respect. The seaweed cows don’t just not fart methane, they grow fatter for less feed. The solar power isn’t just green, it’s cheaper and safer per GWh, and makes good use of fallow land while promoting biodiversity,... etc.

Also, quality Veggie burgers have been a thing for almost a decade now. With major fast-food chain and grocery stores are offering them.

There are so many way to handle global warming issue, and yes individual contribution does matter, but the only way to move the needle in any meaningful way has to come from the top of the government and real actual meaningful policy and its implementation in a reasonable time.

That is going to be very tough to do in the majority of the world government.

Perhaps we should reduce government subsidies to beef producers and start giving them to lab meat and veggie burger producers? My biggest problem with plant-based meat & cheese analogs at this point is that they cost more. It shouldn't take too much tweaking to at least bring them to parity.

We can't, only government can and they won't Meet/farming industry is quite big and employs a lot of people not to mention the industry lobbying is strong. Going against them is political suicide.

The problem of global warming is not a technical problem or a problem that is not solvable or daunting. It's a Human problem, a combination of greed, complacency, and the daunting task of making massive lifestyle and business change all across the world to come into agreement and work together and make massive compromise.

The chances of this happening is zero.

There will be changes, and people should be lauded for their effort, but its too little too late.

Reminds me of one of my favorite scene from "The Newsroom" TV Series. Maybe a bit too drammatic, but the gist is true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyULP9rk-iM

The reduction of emissions due to efficiency does not counterbalance the increase of emissions. I'll take cars as an example: today's engines are really more efficient than engines in the 60s but cars are bigger, there are more cars per persons, there are more people. EV are a solution, but their are not 0 emissions, the construction of course emit some carbon, the delivery of cars around the world too. If they are used in china they probably will be using coal electricity. Building, delivering and powering a EV for everyone that use thermal vehicle and an increasing number of people that buy a first car won't reduce the carbon footprint. The reduction of emissions won't happen without scaling back the economy and/or the population.

The logistics of feeding cows seaweed are challenging and I wonder who would pick up the tab and be willing to take on the risk. Much of the grazing areas and feed lots are between north part of Texas and Nebraska. Who collects the seaweed? Who brings it from the coast to the feed lots? How is it stored? Will veterinarians be willing to treat (and know how) cattle being fed seaweed?

Some people say they can taste the difference in beef between grass fed and corn fed. What about seaweed fed? If the beef is not as palatable, steak houses won't want to buy it.

I'm not saying that it's not something worth pursuing, but it's not a quick, simple, risk-free, or inexpensive conversion.

(edit: clarify that my response is addressing the seaweed part of parent's post)

The grandparent's post might be referring to an article¹ recently featured on HN which stated that complementing cow feed with less than 2% of a specific dried seaweed, called Asparagopsis, might decrease their methane production by 99%.

[¹] : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498

Or follow Mumbai and ban eating cows (or make it really expensive). Seriously, pivoting to chicken at scale is more straightforward and has more predictable outcomes.

Or substituting beef with pork. As pork is so much better than beef CO2-wise, I find it strange why people advocate vegetarianism or meat substitute instead of advocating beef/pork substitution.

Well, for one thing, it is much easier to get a message across if people don't mistake your actions as taking sides in someone else's major and ongoing religious conflict.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com