I found this article quite interesting as it adds some much-needed context to the original.
It’s mostly saying that, on a per-calorie basis, rice produces notably more methane compared to most other grains but still very much less than animal-agriculture (specifically, cows).
Realistically, rice will continue to be needed as a staple food in many places so it can’t be broadly eliminated as a food source. Most consumers who are trying to reduce emissions will be better off looking for ways to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy as it will have a bigger impact.
Apparently, flooding the field kills weeds but allows the rice plant to survive. The plant matter decomposes and releases methane gas. The article’s main point is to bring awareness to a planting technique that doesn’t produce methane gas. It’s clickbait more than corps doing there “take individual responsibility” thing.
I found this article quite interesting as it adds some much-needed context to the original.
It’s mostly saying that, on a per-calorie basis, rice produces notably more methane compared to most other grains but still very much less than animal-agriculture (specifically, cows).
Realistically, rice will continue to be needed as a staple food in many places so it can’t be broadly eliminated as a food source. Most consumers who are trying to reduce emissions will be better off looking for ways to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy as it will have a bigger impact.
The original article talks specifically about flooding rice farming. https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/your-bowl-of-rice-is-hurting-the-climate-too
Apparently, flooding the field kills weeds but allows the rice plant to survive. The plant matter decomposes and releases methane gas. The article’s main point is to bring awareness to a planting technique that doesn’t produce methane gas. It’s clickbait more than corps doing there “take individual responsibility” thing.