60
[Article] This secret society is on a mission to change the way we eat
(www.motherjones.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
60 points (94.1% liked)
Interesting Shares
1087 readers
103 users here now
Share interesting articles, projects, research, pictures, or videos.
Please include a prefix in your title!
Prefixes for posts
Certain clients offer filters to make prefixes searchable. Photon (m.lemmy.zip) used for hyperlinks below:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sure. The cow is the flaw. It does not produce more carbon than it exhumes, due to entropy, but beyond that it itself is carbon based, therefore it inherently cannot sequester or aide in sequestering more carbon than it used to make itself.
Your math simply isn't.
If u read what i wrote then u would understand ur i completly missing the point. Cows eat grass which is atmospheric carbon and shit a majority of that out wich will be sequested in the soil. Entropy is concept relevent to energy quality or microstates. Im not talking about the cow itself im talking about the processing of grass (atmospheric carbon) the cow is doing acting as a machine in the proccess of carbon sequestation.
And you're not understanding the machine itself takes by far most of that carbon which is released at a later point when it is slaughtered, not sequestered. It is released and wasted, most of it removed from the local cycle unless you Aussies are to the point of spreading human feces and butchers waste back on to fields.
No animal is a carbon sink. Some plants are, not grasses, but some plants can be. Some fungi might be. Animals are not.
But the carbon of the animal itself is a small percentage of the grass itself. Im not claiming the animap itself is a sink but the proccess the animal has upon the environment is.