Skip to main content

View Diary: Important New Legislation Which Can Mitigate Worst Effects of Climate Change (61 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  industrialized countries especially US contribute (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action

    most to methane from industrialized livestock production in CAFOs.  Animal protein can easily be replaced by plant protein with many health benefits

    Macca's Meatless Monday

    by VL Baker on Thu May 16, 2013 at 06:49:32 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  "can easily be replaced" (0+ / 0-)

      That's been true for a very long time and yet people raise livestock in rich and poor countries alike.

      WRT to sources -- I would love to be pointed at some good data.  I went traipsing around the internet, and the best I cold find was this:

      I find it more than a little confusing, but one thing I noticed was that low and lower-middle income nations appear to be producing much higher methane emissions than high income countries.

      Big asterisk, though, because I am not confident that I'm reading it right.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:06:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  chart you presented shows most methane is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sir Roderick, Words In Action

        produced in the industrialized countries. The poor countries such as Africa have much less methane production. Meat production in Africa is not industrialized and per capita consumption is low.

        Macca's Meatless Monday

        by VL Baker on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:13:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, actually it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

          You need to look in the tables below the chart.
          The chart is misleading if you look at the "total" version for a couple of reaons:

          1. It is distorted by the Mercatur projection. That's an artifact of taking a globe, smashing it flat, and filling in the spaces. As you get further and further from the equator, areas appear to be larger than they are.

          To get an idea of the effect, compare Alaska with the continental US.  Alaska looks to be something more than half as big as the lower 48, but, in fact, is only about 20% of their area.

          2. There is no legend for the differences in color. What, exactly, is the difference between orange and darker orange? Does the darking represent a linear relationship with the underlying data, or some arbitrary choice?

          When you flip it over to "per 100,000" people mode, everything flattens out and you can see that methane emissions per capita do not differ very much throughout the world. Keeping that in mind, and knowing that the United States is only about 5% of the world population, you can see that the United States, by itself, would not make very much difference in the problem.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:43:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  well there are numbers there (0+ / 0-)

            1) I don't see how the map project changes anything other than the size of the country, it won't change the colour or the number that displays it's not like anyone has claimed wow multiply that colour by that area and we're even more than China!.

            2) There are bar graphs and per country numbers as well. Yes a colour gradient will be inexact and could be used to mislead(not that I think it is there) but a legend mapping 100+ specific colour shades to exact values would be ludicrous.

            3) Now in per capita mode you're arguing the colours look about the same so it doesn't make a difference despite having previously claimed the first map was useless because it used a colour gradient, and while I wouldn't claim the 2nd map is worthless the congo does throw off the scale by being crazy high. Points that I found interesting going per capita. We're a bit over 4x that of India, 3-4x western europe, and what's up with Australia and New Zeland? 665 and 573 to our 274

            It certainly does show that low income countries aren't producing much total methane. Really it's middle income that drives the total in their data. You are correct that any action with alters the US number only will significantly alter the total but seem to presenting an argument against all actions ever by anyone.

            •  argh me no think good (0+ / 0-)

              " only will significantly alter the total" must be some odd combination of "will only slightly" and "will not significantly" I guess going by the data there we're around 12% of the methane USA/(high+middle+low income). Clearly I should have went to bed 5 hours ago.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site