"Consequently, rice production is responsible for 12% of total methane emissions—and 1.5% of total greenhouse-gas emissions, comparable to the aviation sector. Vietnam’s paddy fields produce much more carbon equivalent than the country’s transportation."
I think there is a difference between flying around a few million people who are part of the 1% and feeding 60% of the world's population. I think looking at sources of emissions is fine, especially when there is potential for reduction. But this feels a bit like blaming the global poor for climate change. Rice does not fuel the climate crisis, coal power plants do.
Half the population of industrial nations may fly in a given year, and it works out to about 11% of the world population flying. However the "1%" may account for up to half of aviation's emissions, mostly on private jets.
Food for thought: with minimal processing, rice can be turned into a consumer-ready foodstuff that keeps for years without refridgeration. The plant itself produces a greater yield per acre than other grains and, when dried, packs an incredible 350 calories per 100 grams.
This is all to say that rice demands less farmland development, is more fuel efficient to farm, more fuel efficient to process, more fuel efficient to transport/store, and less prone to wastage. I'm not a climate scientist, but I suspect these factors balance out the calculus somewhat.
Perhaps more importantly: rice is cheap, delicious, and culturally important. It's simply not going away as long as people continue to live on this planet. That's not to say that we should consider the methane footprint to be an empty trifle, of course. It's absolutely still a problem to be solved.
One possible solution would the GMO route -- China is uniquely positioned here, since they have both the required research infrastructure and economic command to make it happen and get adopted. The promise of this is already starting to be realized with China's recent success in making truly perennial rice a commercial reality[1][2]
[2]: By the way, I'm not a China plant and I'll prove it: Taiwan deserves international recognition as a free and independent country. China needs to stop perpetrating the Uyghur genocide. China needs to free Tibet and cease their domination of Tibetan Buddhism. China needs to rescind the national security law and restore democracy to Hong Kong.
It's sad that if you say anything even remotely positive about China on HN, you must clarify you are not a CCP plant. I understand why you do it though: I was recently accused of being an Iranian plant!
I love rice in all its forms. Thanks for your comment.
I agree with your conclusion but come on, before the pandemic there were 4.5 billions air passenger per years, so airlines are globally flying way more than the 1%.
"4.5 billion" -- that's not individual passengers, that counts the guy commuting between New York and Los Angeles twice a week 100 times, and Elon Musk probably 250 times, idk. (Realistically does not count private jets probably.)
Comments
I think there is a difference between flying around a few million people who are part of the 1% and feeding 60% of the world's population. I think looking at sources of emissions is fine, especially when there is potential for reduction. But this feels a bit like blaming the global poor for climate change. Rice does not fuel the climate crisis, coal power plants do.
Half the population of industrial nations may fly in a given year, and it works out to about 11% of the world population flying. However the "1%" may account for up to half of aviation's emissions, mostly on private jets.
https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/one-percent-worlds-...
Those do sound like plausible numbers. Appreciate the data!
Food for thought: with minimal processing, rice can be turned into a consumer-ready foodstuff that keeps for years without refridgeration. The plant itself produces a greater yield per acre than other grains and, when dried, packs an incredible 350 calories per 100 grams.
This is all to say that rice demands less farmland development, is more fuel efficient to farm, more fuel efficient to process, more fuel efficient to transport/store, and less prone to wastage. I'm not a climate scientist, but I suspect these factors balance out the calculus somewhat.
Perhaps more importantly: rice is cheap, delicious, and culturally important. It's simply not going away as long as people continue to live on this planet. That's not to say that we should consider the methane footprint to be an empty trifle, of course. It's absolutely still a problem to be solved.
One possible solution would the GMO route -- China is uniquely positioned here, since they have both the required research infrastructure and economic command to make it happen and get adopted. The promise of this is already starting to be realized with China's recent success in making truly perennial rice a commercial reality[1][2]
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00997-3
[2]: By the way, I'm not a China plant and I'll prove it: Taiwan deserves international recognition as a free and independent country. China needs to stop perpetrating the Uyghur genocide. China needs to free Tibet and cease their domination of Tibetan Buddhism. China needs to rescind the national security law and restore democracy to Hong Kong.
It's sad that if you say anything even remotely positive about China on HN, you must clarify you are not a CCP plant. I understand why you do it though: I was recently accused of being an Iranian plant!
I love rice in all its forms. Thanks for your comment.
Now this is going to far. There is clearly better and worse rice. Last thing we need in this forum is some basmati rice apologist :D
Haha, I adore basmati rice! Truly. Don't you like it?
I did exaggerate though: I don't like brown rice much... I can eat it, I just don't love it.
Damn, I was going to raise brown rice and black rice as the pinnacle of food. Acquired taste though, for sure.
I agree with your conclusion but come on, before the pandemic there were 4.5 billions air passenger per years, so airlines are globally flying way more than the 1%.
"4.5 billion" -- that's not individual passengers, that counts the guy commuting between New York and Los Angeles twice a week 100 times, and Elon Musk probably 250 times, idk. (Realistically does not count private jets probably.)