Henrik Hindby Koszyczarek
@henrikhindby.bsky.social
Journalist fighting against climate disinformation. We need to treat animals and our planet better. Here we enjoy Arsenal, The Offspring & guinea pigs.
"Something else is driving this escalation. It is minerals, not drugs."
thehill.com/opinion/inte...
thehill.com/opinion/inte...
December 13, 2025 at 11:03 AM
"Something else is driving this escalation. It is minerals, not drugs."
thehill.com/opinion/inte...
thehill.com/opinion/inte...
This is such an important point, and I hope that all decision-makers will be constantly reminded of it when they refuse to impose taxes on CO2 because ‘it hits the poor the hardest’.
If you don't do anything, they'll be hit even harder.
#dkpol
If you don't do anything, they'll be hit even harder.
#dkpol
December 2, 2025 at 5:32 PM
This is such an important point, and I hope that all decision-makers will be constantly reminded of it when they refuse to impose taxes on CO2 because ‘it hits the poor the hardest’.
If you don't do anything, they'll be hit even harder.
#dkpol
If you don't do anything, they'll be hit even harder.
#dkpol
Not entirely correct. Nitrous oxide comes from soil microbes, but the nitrogen they act on largely comes from animal manure and urine. N2O is a long-lived potent greenhouse gas. Not net zero.
September 29, 2025 at 1:34 PM
Not entirely correct. Nitrous oxide comes from soil microbes, but the nitrogen they act on largely comes from animal manure and urine. N2O is a long-lived potent greenhouse gas. Not net zero.
Your original claim (screenshot) said animals must be net zero. That leaves no room for emissions from overgrazing, manure N2O-emissions, or poor management. You’ve now shifted to saying ‘can be net zero’, which contradicts your first point. Your original claim is what I've counterargued all along.
September 25, 2025 at 9:28 AM
Your original claim (screenshot) said animals must be net zero. That leaves no room for emissions from overgrazing, manure N2O-emissions, or poor management. You’ve now shifted to saying ‘can be net zero’, which contradicts your first point. Your original claim is what I've counterargued all along.
Another straw man. Stay on topic: We're discussing your claim that livestock by definition is net zero. You seem to contradict that now, admitting that there're cases where livestock isn't net zero due to "poor management"
(Manure in the soil starts a reaction which leads to N2O-emissions)
(Manure in the soil starts a reaction which leads to N2O-emissions)
September 23, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Another straw man. Stay on topic: We're discussing your claim that livestock by definition is net zero. You seem to contradict that now, admitting that there're cases where livestock isn't net zero due to "poor management"
(Manure in the soil starts a reaction which leads to N2O-emissions)
(Manure in the soil starts a reaction which leads to N2O-emissions)
But neither metric makes livestock net zero: N2O still accumulates, and CH4 is still rising. Net zero needs deep cuts + removals across all gases, not just stable CH4. Pierrehumbert has also underlined the importance of reducing livestock to limit global warming.
September 21, 2025 at 9:04 AM
But neither metric makes livestock net zero: N2O still accumulates, and CH4 is still rising. Net zero needs deep cuts + removals across all gases, not just stable CH4. Pierrehumbert has also underlined the importance of reducing livestock to limit global warming.
You claimed cattle were net zero. If they truly were, reducing their emissions wouldn't make any change in global temperature. It seems that IPCC doesn't understand you either then, because they write this 👇
September 19, 2025 at 11:02 AM
You claimed cattle were net zero. If they truly were, reducing their emissions wouldn't make any change in global temperature. It seems that IPCC doesn't understand you either then, because they write this 👇
Reducing cattle = less methane = falling atmospheric concentration = reduced radiative forcing = lower warming trajectory.
Tell me what it is that you disagree with here?
The IPCC AR6👇
No mention of cattle being net zero. 🤷♂️
Tell me what it is that you disagree with here?
The IPCC AR6👇
No mention of cattle being net zero. 🤷♂️
September 17, 2025 at 8:56 PM
Reducing cattle = less methane = falling atmospheric concentration = reduced radiative forcing = lower warming trajectory.
Tell me what it is that you disagree with here?
The IPCC AR6👇
No mention of cattle being net zero. 🤷♂️
Tell me what it is that you disagree with here?
The IPCC AR6👇
No mention of cattle being net zero. 🤷♂️
You're moving the goalposts again.
You're also ignoring the fact that a lot of grazing is now happening on deforested lands.
You're also ignoring the fact that a lot of grazing is now happening on deforested lands.
September 17, 2025 at 6:36 PM
You're moving the goalposts again.
You're also ignoring the fact that a lot of grazing is now happening on deforested lands.
You're also ignoring the fact that a lot of grazing is now happening on deforested lands.
Sure, should we take the UN definition?
What you're arguing is that 1.5 billion cattle don't leave any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ignoring the fact that their methane emissions have increased the concentration of methane in our atmosphere because it's emitted repeatedly. Let me ask you: ->
What you're arguing is that 1.5 billion cattle don't leave any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ignoring the fact that their methane emissions have increased the concentration of methane in our atmosphere because it's emitted repeatedly. Let me ask you: ->
September 17, 2025 at 6:27 PM
Sure, should we take the UN definition?
What you're arguing is that 1.5 billion cattle don't leave any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ignoring the fact that their methane emissions have increased the concentration of methane in our atmosphere because it's emitted repeatedly. Let me ask you: ->
What you're arguing is that 1.5 billion cattle don't leave any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ignoring the fact that their methane emissions have increased the concentration of methane in our atmosphere because it's emitted repeatedly. Let me ask you: ->
I know what net zero means. Methane from cows breaks down after ~10 years into CO₂, but causes strong warming meanwhile. N₂O lasts even longer. Net zero means all GHGs balance, not just CO₂ — which livestock don’t, since they emit CH₄ and N₂O continuously. Which is why we're seeing this increase 👇
September 17, 2025 at 8:34 AM
I know what net zero means. Methane from cows breaks down after ~10 years into CO₂, but causes strong warming meanwhile. N₂O lasts even longer. Net zero means all GHGs balance, not just CO₂ — which livestock don’t, since they emit CH₄ and N₂O continuously. Which is why we're seeing this increase 👇
Making concessions to Trump gives him & GOP political momentum. This increases the risk of a new GOP-president being elected, which'll worsen the EU-US-alliance. The safest course of action is to stand firm so he doesnt achieve political victories
@vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu @marossefcovic.bsky.social
@vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu @marossefcovic.bsky.social
August 28, 2025 at 8:14 AM
Making concessions to Trump gives him & GOP political momentum. This increases the risk of a new GOP-president being elected, which'll worsen the EU-US-alliance. The safest course of action is to stand firm so he doesnt achieve political victories
@vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu @marossefcovic.bsky.social
@vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu @marossefcovic.bsky.social
Trump has made America look like a war-zone.
www.ctvnews.ca/world/articl...
www.ctvnews.ca/world/articl...
July 11, 2025 at 10:25 AM
Trump has made America look like a war-zone.
www.ctvnews.ca/world/articl...
www.ctvnews.ca/world/articl...
Human-caused global warming has been increasing faster and faster since the 1970s.
www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/c...
www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/c...
June 26, 2025 at 8:30 PM
Human-caused global warming has been increasing faster and faster since the 1970s.
www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/c...
www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/c...
Hvad fanden...! Tysk politi skyder en malle, fordi den var aggressiv over for badegæsterne. Politiet formoder, at den var aggressiv, fordi den forsøgte at beskytte sin rede og unger!? Vores foragt over for andre væsener er noget forbandet svineri. Luk da hellere den forbandede strand for gæster.
June 23, 2025 at 8:29 PM
Hvad fanden...! Tysk politi skyder en malle, fordi den var aggressiv over for badegæsterne. Politiet formoder, at den var aggressiv, fordi den forsøgte at beskytte sin rede og unger!? Vores foragt over for andre væsener er noget forbandet svineri. Luk da hellere den forbandede strand for gæster.
Der er et yndigt sprøjtet land. Her ses en konventionel Roundup-sprøjtet mark klos op ad en økologisk nabomark. Gæt selv hvilken side, der er den økologiske.
April 22, 2025 at 9:13 AM
Der er et yndigt sprøjtet land. Her ses en konventionel Roundup-sprøjtet mark klos op ad en økologisk nabomark. Gæt selv hvilken side, der er den økologiske.
Her ser man den vilde effekt det har på luftforureningen, når man som i Paris indfører restriktioner for bilerne og giver mere plads til grønne parker og cyklister. Hvornår ser vi #dkpol efterligne det gode eksempel til gavn for vores sundhed, miljø og klima?
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solu...
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solu...
April 16, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Her ser man den vilde effekt det har på luftforureningen, når man som i Paris indfører restriktioner for bilerne og giver mere plads til grønne parker og cyklister. Hvornår ser vi #dkpol efterligne det gode eksempel til gavn for vores sundhed, miljø og klima?
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solu...
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solu...
Hvad sker der her, @sofiegraarup.bsky.social @alexanderholm.bsky.social?
April 3, 2025 at 8:51 PM
Hvad sker der her, @sofiegraarup.bsky.social @alexanderholm.bsky.social?
Nylige tilbageslag for klimaindsatsen gør, at store finanshuse nu regner med en global opvarmning på 3C - et katastrofalt højt tal, som smadrer Paris-aftalen. Men man er jo ikke finanshus for ingenting, så Morgan Stanley anbefaler derfor at investere i aircondition-sektoren.
tinyurl.com/3hcbhh88
tinyurl.com/3hcbhh88
April 3, 2025 at 6:35 PM
Nylige tilbageslag for klimaindsatsen gør, at store finanshuse nu regner med en global opvarmning på 3C - et katastrofalt højt tal, som smadrer Paris-aftalen. Men man er jo ikke finanshus for ingenting, så Morgan Stanley anbefaler derfor at investere i aircondition-sektoren.
tinyurl.com/3hcbhh88
tinyurl.com/3hcbhh88
Is this for real?? Are you forced to say you believe a conspiracy theory in order to work for the Trump administration??
😂😂😂😂
Ohhhhh, America... You went from giving us the Moon landing to this.
😂😂😂😂
Ohhhhh, America... You went from giving us the Moon landing to this.
March 31, 2025 at 1:22 PM
Is this for real?? Are you forced to say you believe a conspiracy theory in order to work for the Trump administration??
😂😂😂😂
Ohhhhh, America... You went from giving us the Moon landing to this.
😂😂😂😂
Ohhhhh, America... You went from giving us the Moon landing to this.
I saw this on Facebook and figured it would suit Bluesky too
March 25, 2025 at 6:53 PM
I saw this on Facebook and figured it would suit Bluesky too
Ja, det er nyregistreringer
March 20, 2025 at 11:16 AM
Ja, det er nyregistreringer
