so says you, i say, we go after the fossil fuels, then the chemical product polluters and THEN see where we are with the methane. 14.5% of all emissions isn’t nothing, but it aint the other 85.5% i say we tackle first. *** pirouette, and scene***
Methane is worse in the short to medium term, so if anything we should be hitting it first. But as the other commenter suggested, it needs to be a full court press of tackling agriculture, electricity, manufacturing, transport, and efficiency all at once if he want to prevent even more severe damage to climate.
Unfortunately, it’s going to take both. Methane from cattle is a big enough deal that it matters.
And also that it’s absurdly inefficient in terms of CO2 emissions to grow crops just to feed these animals, rather than eat the crops directly.
nOt AlL oF tHaT lAnD iS sUiTaBlE fOr HuMaN fOoD
Because god forbid we eat soy or something ig?
so says you, i say, we go after the fossil fuels, then the chemical product polluters and THEN see where we are with the methane. 14.5% of all emissions isn’t nothing, but it aint the other 85.5% i say we tackle first. *** pirouette, and scene***
We should be tackling all of it. At once. Not picking and choosing. Because we need to get to zero. Fast.
Methane is worse in the short to medium term, so if anything we should be hitting it first. But as the other commenter suggested, it needs to be a full court press of tackling agriculture, electricity, manufacturing, transport, and efficiency all at once if he want to prevent even more severe damage to climate.