Greentext

4588 readers

966 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

730

Anon takes the horsepill (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 month ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

193 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

0 emissions? Methane from cattle is a large contributer to climate change. If we had as much horses as we have cars, the amount of methane would be too much to handle.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Cars run on gas, horses run on grass.

Livestock contribute by land use (deforestation, crops for feed, pasture), water consumption, and the fossil fuel used in logistics processes (farm equipment, transport, electricity, etc...)

But anyways, animal farts come from preexisting carbon in the biosphere. Car farts come from extracting previously sequestered carbon. So without extractive processes, and with ethical land use/management, the atmospheric methane wouldn't have a significant impact.

Also you fart too. So there's that...

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But anyways, animal farts come from preexisting carbon in the biosphere. Car farts come from extracting previously sequestered carbon. So without extractive processes, and with ethical land use/management, the atmospheric methane wouldn't have a significant impact.

Methane is 81x worse that CO2 over 20 Years, so if it came from atmospheric carbon it's only 80x as bad.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Sure but the generation of new hydrocarbons from sequestered resources means net available carbon increases. You're totally right that converting existing atmospheric CO2 to methane would have a larger impact. I'm not saying agriculture is off the hook here, nor that we should consider the horse as a solution to climate change, just that we probably wouldn't need this conversation without fossil fuel extraction.

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Also you fart too. So there's that...

So you're saying to solve climate change we need to remove the humans? You might be on to something there.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

A few select ones would make a massive difference.