Pushing a solution that requires dependence on animal agriculture is just someone trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
Also, was there supposed to be a linked article?Why does just a picture and a headline have so many upvotes? Is this community asleep at the wheel??Never mind, it’s fixed now, and the linked article clearly views the “solution” as a negative.
deleted by creator
“Let’s take all that yucky methane released by cows and make it fuel!”
- how’s that help?
“It keeps the carbon from entering the atmosphere.” - okay genius. What uses the fuel?
“Engines I suppose”. - and the engine combusts it and creates…?
“Exhaust?” - and that exhaust is made of…?
“CO2 and NOx and SOx.” - and is released to…?
“The atmosphere.” - So how does that help?
“I have a new fuel revenue stream.”
Methane is roughy 1000x as potent at global warming as CO2.
You may not like cattle farming, but take the win.
Gonna need a source on your 1000x. I can find 27.9x the potential, per unit mass. I think my point still stands: they’re taking a problem and merely converting it into a different form of the problem, and calling it a solution.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
I think you need to compare the greenhouse effect from methane as compared to that CO2, NOx and SOx released by burning off the methane. There is a reasone the EPA requires waste water treatment plants to flare off methane rather than freely releasing it.
- how’s that help?
This just links to a picture?
Edit: OP fixed it. If you’re not seeing it try refreshing. Federation lag and all.
Fixed.
Thanks. Figured it was a mistake.
