Uplifting News

11488 readers

88 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

WandererLagomorph770

wolfeh

314

6,000 sheep will soon be grazing on 10,000 acres of Texas solar fields (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago by wallybeavis to c/upliftingnews

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The largest solar grazing project in the U.S. will reduce mowing costs and emissions — and make for some happy sheep.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] partial_accumen 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Assuming the sheep are only fed from the grass they eat on-site, how are they NOT carbon neutral?

You’re correct that they take in the same number of carbon atoms as they eventually exhale/excrete/etc… So, in that sense, they are carbon-neutral.

But that doesn’t mean they’re climate-neutral, because when you combine carbon atoms with 4x hydrogen, you get methane, which for physical reasons has a significantly stronger greenhouse effect than CO2. And ruminants (like sheep and cows) belch out lots of methane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminant#Ruminants_and_climate_change

I wondered if you were going to go the methane angle. Like most of the points here, you're not wrong, but focusing on it negates the overall good.

That’s why even people who would immediately choke to death, if they ate a vegetable, could still help out on the climate front, if they switched from beef (and mutton) to poultry and pork. See this graph, for example: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/food-footprints

But every conversation has to be injected with this message?

And yeah, reading through the article, I’m happy that it’s being used for solar, I’m happy that if we’re already raising sheep, they’re at least being used relatively efficiently, I’m even happy that the sheep are living a relatively happy life.

What I’m less happy about, is that OP vegan was pretty spot on. They’re raising additional sheep for this endeavour. And no one had the expert knowledge to ask, if the belching sheep maybe somewhat undermine the climate advantages of solar.

Because that wasn't the choices. It was mow with fossil fuels or mow with sheep. This is what becomes so tiresome about the vegan injection. Yes things can be better. Yes this isn't perfect. No, veganism isn't the only way to achieve improved results.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Cool. So, why did you pretend to not know about methane? Was it really necessary to waste my time explaining it?

[–] Jiggle_Physics 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They didn't do that. They were talking about other aspects of the situation that make this preferable to people mowing the fields. You just assumed that, since they didn't specifically discus methane emissions, they didn't know about it, or pretended not to. This is weird.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I wrote:

it happens that people think grazing animals are 100% climate-neutral

To which they responded:

Assuming the sheep are only fed from the grass they eat on-site, how are they NOT carbon neutral?

Then follows my lengthy explanation about methane. And then they write:

I wondered if you were going to go the methane angle.

So, they knew that climate-neutral ≠ carbon-neutral.
They knew that "Assuming the sheep are only fed from the grass they eat on-site, how are they NOT carbon neutral?" is just the wrong question to ask.

I cannot see how I should have not interpreted that as a technical question by someone who does not know about methane.
I wouldn't care, if they didn't now also tell me off for giving a technical answer.