• enkers@sh.itjust.works
    222·
    5 months ago

    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.

  • bazus1@lemmy.worldEnglish
    95·
    5 months ago

    “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.”
    • deegeese
      13·
      5 months ago

      Methane is roughy 1000x as potent at global warming as CO2.

      You may not like cattle farming, but take the win.

      • bazus1@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        5 months ago

        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.

    • Aphelion@lemm.ee
      6·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
    62·
    5 months ago

    This just links to a picture?

    Edit: OP fixed it. If you’re not seeing it try refreshing. Federation lag and all.