I just got a CO2 meter and checked the levels in my house and went down a rabbit hole trying to address the issue. Apparently it would take 249 areca palms to offset the carbon RESPIRATION of one adult.

So okay 249 trees just for me to breathe, not to mention the rest of the bad things we all do.

So how can this math ever balance? 249 trees just to break even seems like an impossible number. Then all the flights I have been on, miles driven, etc.

I feel like that’s… Way too many trees. Is it hopeless or am I missing something?

  • @mister_monster
    link
    English
    -29 months ago

    Breathing does not create Carbon, it is only transformed.

    Yet somehow when cows do it this is not the case.

    Your premise is that the only carbon that’s new is from fossil fuels, which I can agree with (to a point; it came from biomass originally so is not truly new, just reintegrated after a billion years) but the problem is your view, the view we had for a few decades until very recently, is not the most common view. People talk about carbon in biomass going through the carbon cycle as if it’s a bad thing now, and you get called a fucking denier of all things if you point out that that is ridiculous.

    • Hillock
      link
      fedilink
      229 months ago

      No one is complaining about the carbon a cow is breathing in and out. It’s the methane they produce, which is a very potent greenhouse gas, about 80 times the warming power.

      • @mister_monster
        link
        English
        -4
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Methane has a half life of 8 years, and is produced from carbon dioxide and water, specifically it is produced into carbohydrates by plants which are then broken down into methane by certain bacteria in animal digestive systems. It degrades back into carbon dioxide and water through oxidization very quickly in the atmosphere. It’s effect on global warming is miniscule compared to carbon dioxide, by measure of the volume of each produced and their persistence in the atmosphere. Methane is a non issue, and is easily made up for by the fact that cows, and the humans that eat them, are carbon sinks also. Imagine if you stopped cattle production and destroyed all those cattle to stop them from creating methane, how much carbon dioxide do you think they’d create as they biodegrade? This would have a significant impact on warming, way way more than the methane does. The existence of cattle (and any and all biomass in general since they’re all carbon sinks) is a net positive for warming, by far.

          • @mister_monster
            link
            English
            -19 months ago

            Just no huh.

            The article you link shows carbon dioxide having a stronger impact on warming than methane in aggregate, which is what I’m talking about and what matters.

            • @meco03211@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              59 months ago

              Methane in the Earth’s atmosphere is a powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame.

              You were crying about people bemoaning the impact of cows breathing. You were wrong.

              • @mister_monster
                link
                English
                -69 months ago

                potential. Do you even understand what you’re citing? There are graphs in the article if words are hard. Do you know what radiative forcing is? You should read about it.

                • Skua
                  link
                  fedilink
                  29 months ago

                  The fact that you are isolating the word “potential” suggests that you don’t realise what “global warming potential” actually is. It’s a measurement for comparing the effect of greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide, not the top of an error bar

                  • @mister_monster
                    link
                    English
                    09 months ago

                    I understand this, but it’s a comparison between the two compounds, not a comparison of the effect each are having at the volumes they get released.

                    Cows uptake a lot of carbon dioxide just by existing as biomass. This more than offsets any methane they fart out.

    • @meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      79 months ago

      Cows fart which creates methane. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Like 25x worse. Add on to that we artificially increase the bovine population by orders of magnitude than they’d naturally attain so we can consume them. They contribute a lot to climate change.

    • beaubbe
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Cows do not create carbon. They turn it into methane which is a worse form of carbon.

      The same way you can turn carbon in biomass to “lock” it from the atmosphere, you can turn it in worse forms of gas that cause even more heating like methane. The methane will turn back in CO2 form once it burns or degrade naturally (a dozen years or so) but while it is under methane form, it will make it worse, accelerating the heating effects. But even stopping all methane emissions is only a temporary solution as carbon from pool 2 keeps moving in pool 1. It may give us more time before reaching the same level of greenhouse effect but we will reach it anyway.