News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%. Parent comment

Re:Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces met... by dsirola on Thursday September 24, 2020 @10:25AM (#24578883)
It's true that methane has a much greater impact, but only in the short term. Long term, CO2 is much more dangerous. The methane that cow produces is recycled as it circulates through the atmosphere -> plants -> cows -> atmosphere cycle. Fossil fuel burning on the other hand is not. It's released from the ground and there's no way for it to get back there. Nothing is ever black and white and to think that eliminating the animals as the food source would solve the problem is naive.

https://onezero.medium.com/cow-farts-are-not-the-problem-f57...

https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI

https://medium.com/@caroline.stocks/debunking-the-methane-my...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces met... by redisman on Thursday September 24, 2020 @02:23PM (#24581766)
It's short term (12 years seems like before being reabsorbed) but this also means that we have this big static-ish chunk being renewed and absorbed in a cycle. If we reduce emissions then that static variable goes down and gives us more time on the other 100 things we need to figure out.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces met... by bagacrap on Thursday September 24, 2020 @11:13AM (#24579358)
CO2 from fossil fuels can also be reabsorbed by plants. If you grow a forest, chop it down, bury the logs, then it's underground again. Although, not sure why you need it to be underground as long as it's not in the air.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces met... by redisman on Thursday September 24, 2020 @02:24PM (#24581778)
If it's just sitting above the ground then bacteria will eat it and release the carbon as emissions. OR it burns and then turns into emissions.
[ Parent | on HN ]