Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by okreallywtf 2960 days ago
Serious question, what incentive is there for this to be done on a large scale by anyone?

The EPA is being systematically dismantled and the official line of the government (or at least, those in charge of the government) is that climate change is not man made. If it is just a natural process, how could our food systems have any impact on it?

I can't imagine how this wouldn't add at least some costs to feed prices, and my guess is farmers are operating on razor thin margins already. Without some government regulations that put a price on greenhouse gasses why would anyone implement this except on boutique scales?

2 comments

>... dairy farmer named Joe Dorgan inadvertently conducted an experiment on his herd in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Dorgan noticed cows that grazed on washed-up seaweed in paddocks along the shore were healthier and more productive ... and found the new diet saved him money and induced “rip-roaring heats,” or longer cycles of reproductive activity.
Thats great, but it only saved him money because it washed up right on his shore. It saves a small farmer money to let their cows graze on lush green pastures that they need to keep eaten down anyways but that doesn't mean that letting cows graze on lush pastures saves the industry money overall. In general its going to cost more more than likely to get seaweed into the supply chain. Its a race to the bottom, it has to be cheaper than subsidized corn which almost nothing is.
Slap a "No Cow Farts" sticker/logo on beef raised with a sufficient level of seaweed in their diet. Choose that instead of farty-beef at the store.

Don't expect anything to work as well as individuals changing their minds about what is important and acting on it.

Thats crazy, that depends entirely on people being able to afford to pay more for the same basic product. What economics would indicate that this would happen?

You can get antibiotic free meat from whole foods etc, but what do you think is consumed at higher quantities?

If its purely up to buyers choice, it will not happen unless there is a cost associated with carbon output.

Lot's of people pay extra for "organic", "grass-fed", "cage-free", "fair trade", "kosher" and other certifications on products now. "Organic" has just about taken over the produce section in my supermarket in the last few years. And "USDA organic" has dubious value for a lot of products.

If you observe that people don't often pay for "antibiotic free" meat it's likely because they don't see it as a worthwhile value proposition.

If you say that buyers won't choose to pay for global-warming-safe beef, while watching them choose to pay for chemical-pesticide-free beef then that is just another way of saying that no one cares about global warming, and I don't think that is the case.