[olix0r]

> While the EPA reports the cattle industry in the United States accounts for 2.4% of total greenhouse gas emissions, some consumers are convinced that beef production is a major cause of climate change.

This seems to imply that cutting 2.4% of total greenhouse emissions wouldn’t have an impact on climate change. Motivated reasoning.

[goethes_kind]

Every industry is trying to claim that every other industry is THE worrying source of GHG emissions. And every individual points out at the activities of others as being more polluting.

It is all a bit self-serving.

[taway1237]

Yeah, it reads backwards. 2.4% of total greenhouse emissions just for one kind of food item sounds huge.

[delecti]

And just one kind of food from a single country which is only 4.2% of the world's population. That makes beef more than 50% of our "fair share" of emissions.

[vlovich123]

The wording is vague. It’s also possible read as 2.4% of total US emissions, not worldwide. Looking up other sources, it does seem to be 2-3% of total US emissions, not worldwide.

[jncfhnb]

US beef is about 21% of all beef. A lot is exported. Fwiw

[jononomo]

Isn't it incredible that if we all stopped eating beef then this would have a larger impact on global warming than if we rolled back to a preindustrial age and got rid of trains, airplanes, automobiles, and the construction industry?

[fieldcny]

How do you figure?

[tengbretson]

Isn't it wild that the only meat-producing industry that hasn't been completely vertically monopolized by the likes of Tyson or Smithfield gets 100% of the online wrath for its greenhouse gas emissions?

[houseinthesky]

1) The beef industry has monopolistic, anti-competitive cartel behavior similar to the chicken industry. https://www.reuters.com/business/how-four-big-companies-cont...

2) Raising cattle has drastically higher emissions of greenhouse gasses than other animals. For instance, looking at the chart here: https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane beef is 5x to 10x the emissions of chicken.

By my estimate, the online commentary about beef's contributions to the climate crisis feels pretty correctly proportional to their level of emissions.

[appleiigs]

If you switch to veggies, the 2.4% doesn't go to zero. Veggies have impact too. I think it was 30% reduction (overall, not just certain emissions)? Someone more informed can us know.

[uoaei]

Yeah this is a tricky ploy to use language in bad faith.

Literally nothing is a "major" cause of climate change. There's so many things contributing to climate change that any one contributor can be made to look small.

The fact that the cattle industry in one country alone contributes to more than 1% of all greenhouse gas emissions is pretty insane in the context of the entire world.

[vlovich123]

2% of emissions within the US, not globally.

[hn8305823]

2.4% by weight or 2.4% of total global warming potential? Methane has a GWP of 30 (CO2=1).

> and if the rancher uses any anti-methane feed additives

If this effort reduces methane emissions in any meaningful way then it's useful.

[polski-g]

Are there computations for calories-produced per GWP?

How does beef fare compared to something like turkey?

[hnhg]

There is a lot to explore here (emissions per calorie, protein content, etc): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore

[hn8305823]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions

> Ruminant cattle for beef and dairy rank high in greenhouse-gas emissions; monogastric, or pigs and poultry-related foods, are low.

I think it's all about the methane, for which cattle are notorious.

[jonny_eh]

I wonder what bias the "Cowboy State Daily" has.

[prasadjoglekar]

It wouldn't. Just like manufacturing moving out of the US didn't reduce smoke - it just moved it to China, these cattle will just be raised elsewhere. Except, now a few hundred thousand folks in the US are out of a job.