Climate Change is the Big 2020 Issue

[Jamie in Chile]

Revisiting this thread nearly a year later.

I now think that the threats of climate change are very slightly less than I thought a year ago (but still very high) while COVID turned out to be somewhat worse than I expected.

I originally based my argument on a COVID official global death level of 1 million in 2020, perhaps making a real death level of 2 million. Unfortunately, the official death toll was double what I predicted, about 1.9 million, perhaps making a real death level of 4 million.

Given this, my argument that climate change from 2020 emissions would kill more people than COVID looks a bit dubious now. However the argument that 2020 emissions will cause more years of lives lost given it kills younger people still looks to be probably true.

I have since changed my view of the probability of civilization collapse slightly from "10% or higher" to 10% or lower following some slightly improved government rhetoric in 2020 and other news that I summarized here: https://foxesinchile.wordpress.com/2021 ... good-news/

Due to 2020/2021's slight improvement in US/China central government policy, I am wondering if 1% is a bit high for extinction risk due to climate change. In the book, The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity, which I read after posting this article, Toby Ord evaluates the risk as being 0.1%.

I think the central argument I made still stands, but with less confidence than i thought before. It is now more subjective and rests on subjective matters such as the value of non-human life. In retrospect had I known the COVID deaths would be higher than I initially thought I might have made the argument more along the lines that COVID and climate are a similar threat level in 2020.

[Jamie in Chile]

WHO now reports that 15 million is the estimated total death toll from the pandemic
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-61327778

It's probably now a better than 50/50 chance that the number of people killed by the pandemic will be higher than the number of people eventually killed by humanity's greenhouse emissions during the same period.

However I still think climate change and COVID should have been treated on a par by governments in 2020 and 2021 given the additional impact of climate/CO2 on animals and the ocean. The fact that they didn't suggests either a too human centric viewpoint or continuing denialism about climate change.

On a longer term viewpoint, climate change is much bigger than COVID I would say - if you look at biggest issue this decade, or this century.

COVID is fading into the background now. At this point in May 2022 COVID may even be considered less of a concern by governments than climate change is.

[teo123]

WHO now reports that 15 million is the estimated total death toll from the pandemic
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-61327778

It's probably now a better than 50/50 chance that the number of people killed by the pandemic will be higher than the number of people eventually killed by humanity's greenhouse emissions during the same period.

However I still think climate change and COVID should have been treated on a par by governments in 2020 and 2021 given the additional impact of climate/CO2 on animals and the ocean. The fact that they didn't suggests either a too human centric viewpoint or continuing denialism about climate change.

On a longer term viewpoint, climate change is much bigger than COVID I would say - if you look at biggest issue this decade, or this century.

COVID is fading into the background now. At this point in May 2022 COVID may even be considered less of a concern by governments than climate change is.

How exactly do you think the Earth getting half a degree or so warmer could kill 15 million people?

[Jamie in Chile]

Sorry for delay in response, I just saw this, looks like I haven´t been on the forum since May

I didn´t say that half a degree warmer could kill 15 million people

The WHO has estimated 150,000 deaths a year from climate change and cited malaria, diarrhea, heat stress and malnutrition

According to the DARA intergovernmental body (in the report Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet), the number of people that died because of climate change was 400,000 in 2010, mostly from hunger and disease.

It looks like disease and crop failures could lead to more deaths while headline grabbing disasters like fires and floods may kill a smaller number

There is also the possibility that climate change could combine with other issues to lead to war

And there is the wet bulb temperature that means that above certain combinations of heat and humidity in cities with no aircon or electricity grid failures you could get mass death events...has never happened yet but we are coming closer to it

The Climate Impact lab journal article here might also be worth a look:
https://impactlab.org/research/valuing- ... -benefits/

[FredVegrox]

It's real

[FredVegrox]

Climate scientists are overwhelming in agreement that climate change is happening and is still contributed to from modern human living in this world. We still rely heavily on the automobile system and there is agriculture, which makes an extremely great use of animals. There are no explanations ever for how the emissions cannot have the effect on the atmosphere, while everything that has been figured out shows those would. There are those persisting in this same direction while we are certainly seeing things worsen, with climate change but also with destruction of environments and the very great extinction rate of species.
https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject. ... 4287352619

Off this topic, I still look here for what I need still to have a signature here.

[teo123]

Is anybody here aware of some peer-reviewed study about whether rice milk or cow's milk, the way they are usually produced today, emit more methane? I am only aware of some studies showing oat milk emits far less methane than cow's milk, which is completely to be expected. But I am not aware of any such study for the rice milk.

[FredVegrox]

I found this online.

Rice, one of the most abundant crops grown and consumed globally, makes up 12% of global methane emissions – and a staggering 1.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions. When rice is harvested, a ton of rice stubble and straw is left behind for every ton of harvested rice – 750 million tons globally in 2015. Currently, to clear fields for future crops, farmers either burn the rice straw, which results in significant carbon dioxide emissions as well as methane, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matters, or they flood the field to encourage swift decay – which also leads to extensive methane emissions.

However, we’re seeing increasing innovation to reduce these emissions. In India, one of the biggest rice producers along with China and Indonesia, a team has deployed the Happy Seeder Machine. This tractor-mounted machine cuts and lifts straw and stubble before mulching the field with it. A recent study says it reduces gas emissions by more than 78% compared to burning while boosting farmer profits 10-20% due to fewer inputs and higher yields. However, the study also estimated that around 16,000 machines would be needed to convert 50% of rice and wheat farms in India, costing roughly US $34.5 million. It’s unclear who would cover this cost. Sharing and cooperative arrangements would need to be set up and managed, maintenance costs are unknown, and technical assistance would be needed. Yet its early success is encouraging.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/blogs/sus ... he-methane

Still, cattle are the number one agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane. Methane from cattle is shorter lived than carbon dioxide but 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere.

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/wh ... ssil-fuels

[teo123]

I found this online.

Rice, one of the most abundant crops grown and consumed globally, makes up 12% of global methane emissions – and a staggering 1.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions. When rice is harvested, a ton of rice stubble and straw is left behind for every ton of harvested rice – 750 million tons globally in 2015. Currently, to clear fields for future crops, farmers either burn the rice straw, which results in significant carbon dioxide emissions as well as methane, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matters, or they flood the field to encourage swift decay – which also leads to extensive methane emissions.

However, we’re seeing increasing innovation to reduce these emissions. In India, one of the biggest rice producers along with China and Indonesia, a team has deployed the Happy Seeder Machine. This tractor-mounted machine cuts and lifts straw and stubble before mulching the field with it. A recent study says it reduces gas emissions by more than 78% compared to burning while boosting farmer profits 10-20% due to fewer inputs and higher yields. However, the study also estimated that around 16,000 machines would be needed to convert 50% of rice and wheat farms in India, costing roughly US $34.5 million. It’s unclear who would cover this cost. Sharing and cooperative arrangements would need to be set up and managed, maintenance costs are unknown, and technical assistance would be needed. Yet its early success is encouraging.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/blogs/sus ... he-methane

Still, cattle are the number one agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane. Methane from cattle is shorter lived than carbon dioxide but 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere.

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/wh ... ssil-fuels

That doesn't quite answer the question. I know there are ways to reduce methane emissions from both cows and rice. Cows can be fed with seaweed, which will result in them emitting less methane. Or you can have devices above the cow's mouth that catch the methane.
My question is whether cow's milk or rice milk emit less methane the way they are usually produced today.

[FredVegrox]

I found this online.

Rice, one of the most abundant crops grown and consumed globally, makes up 12% of global methane emissions – and a staggering 1.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions. When rice is harvested, a ton of rice stubble and straw is left behind for every ton of harvested rice – 750 million tons globally in 2015. Currently, to clear fields for future crops, farmers either burn the rice straw, which results in significant carbon dioxide emissions as well as methane, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matters, or they flood the field to encourage swift decay – which also leads to extensive methane emissions.

However, we’re seeing increasing innovation to reduce these emissions. In India, one of the biggest rice producers along with China and Indonesia, a team has deployed the Happy Seeder Machine. This tractor-mounted machine cuts and lifts straw and stubble before mulching the field with it. A recent study says it reduces gas emissions by more than 78% compared to burning while boosting farmer profits 10-20% due to fewer inputs and higher yields. However, the study also estimated that around 16,000 machines would be needed to convert 50% of rice and wheat farms in India, costing roughly US $34.5 million. It’s unclear who would cover this cost. Sharing and cooperative arrangements would need to be set up and managed, maintenance costs are unknown, and technical assistance would be needed. Yet its early success is encouraging.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/blogs/sus ... he-methane

Still, cattle are the number one agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane. Methane from cattle is shorter lived than carbon dioxide but 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere.

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/wh ... ssil-fuels

That doesn't quite answer the question. I know there are ways to reduce methane emissions from both cows and rice. Cows can be fed with seaweed, which will result in them emitting less methane. Or you can have devices above the cow's mouth that catch the methane.
My question is whether cow's milk or rice milk emit less methane the way they are usually produced today.

But I am sure I did answer the question, whether or not you really wanted to hear it. That cattle are the number one agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide was included in the text. That establishes that less methane is released for producing rice milk than dairy milk and dairy products. Or do you not want to hear that? If the only options are dairy milk or rice milk, for less methane released rice milk is better the way they are usually produced today. But with what is produced today neither needs to be chosen with other nondairy milk options available that can be chosen. I for one am not ever getting rice milk.