vivalapivo@lemmy.today 4 days ago
It’s never about personal responsibility. You can smug about not eating red meat, driving electric or not having children, but it doesn’t change the reality: the climate is changing.
vivalapivo@lemmy.today 4 days ago
It’s never about personal responsibility. You can smug about not eating red meat, driving electric or not having children, but it doesn’t change the reality: the climate is changing.
TheBeege@lemmy.world 4 days ago
So… yes and no. Yes, most corporations aren’t mitigating their impact as much as they could, even if trying to maximize profit.
But something like consuming red meat… if people aren’t buying it, they’re gonna downsize operations. But that requires a huge change in the diet of a lot of people. So like… yes, but no? If enough people change, yes, but reality suggests that won’t happen, so no. I try to avoid beef, but I’m just one dude.
Here’s what I don’t get: methane is energy rich. Why the hell don’t they capture the methane and sell it? Yes, combusting it produces CO2, but CO2 has a lesser impact than methane, as I understand. So it’s a (minor) help for the environment and theoretically profitable. Why hasn’t this been done yet???
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
It’s really hard. Most methane comes directly from the cow, and cows spend most of their time in air. The methane gets mixed in the air, in very small percentages. Extracting a small bit of methane from a lot of air is complex and energy Intensive, and methane is cheap.
So you’d spend a lot of money and power to produce very little money or power.
TheBeege@lemmy.world 4 days ago
That’s very sensible. Thank you for the explanation. A part of me is thinking “hard means opportunity,” but I do computers, not physics