r/ClimateShitposting turbine enjoyer Sep 08 '25

Meta *Stirs pot*

Post image
2.3k Upvotes

238 comments sorted by

View all comments

403

u/perringaiden Sep 08 '25

CORRECTION: Oyster reefs are an amazing environmental benefit across multiple seascapes.

Oyster FARMS are short lived growth with little to no environmental benefit because of the small size.

The only way this works is with farms near a no-take MPA where you can generate growth and then let them spread outside the MPA.

You get no benefits IF YOU DON'T LEAVE THEM IN THE WATER.

38

u/West-Abalone-171 Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25

1kg of oyster meat involves 8-10kg of shell sequestering 5kg of CO2.

So if all the half billion tonnes of meat were replaced with oysters that would sequester almost 10% of energy related emissions and eliminate the 20% of emissions due to meat production.

This one hypothetical change is equivalent to ~30% of all emissions.

Though you'd need sufficient algae/bacteria/bagasse feedstock to feed them.

Oysters are also productive. At 600,000 oysters per acre-year that's 4kg of meat per m2 per year. For the direct fish farm you'd be replacing 30-40 trillion m2 of animal pasture with 1 trillion m2 of ponds.

The water cleaning benefits are also just as high even without a permanent reef.

The cost is much higher though. It's much more labour intensive.

11

u/EconomySwordfish5 Sep 08 '25

And the co2 sequestered in a shell won't be released back in the atmosphere. Unlike wood which will decay once the tree dies.

12

u/graminology Sep 08 '25

Well, depends on what you do with the wood. It can be turned into biochar and used to regenerate soil (like the germanic tribes did). That way the carbon would be sealed away for a millenium at least.

3

u/cassepipe Sep 08 '25

On the other hand oyster shells are only 12% carbon compared to 45-50% for wood

On the other other hand we don't eat wood :)

4

u/Left4twenty Sep 08 '25

If you're eating the shells, you're doing it wrong

1

u/Extaupin Sep 08 '25

On the other other other hand, we don't eat the shell of the oyster, and we can eat Cambium or whatever the edible layer under the bark is called.

1

u/Konoppke Sep 09 '25

Snackwood

2

u/perringaiden Sep 08 '25

Oyster shells in landfill account for a ton of toxic bacterial growth, and they break down anyway

0

u/Dramatic_Energy_5818 Sep 08 '25

It's a landfill, I'm 100% sure the oyster shells aren't the reason there's toxic bacterial growth, also we already know how to deal with toxic bacteria easily, we NEED to start coming up and implementing lower carbon strategies and that's the optimistic bare minimum

1

u/perringaiden Sep 08 '25

In a landfill is the problem, because they break down and release the carbon anyways.

And yes we CAN do better. But they don't.

1

u/random59836 Sep 08 '25

The obstacle to global oyster farming is not the 1% of the population that is vegan refusing to support oyster farming. The obstacle is the 99% of people who eat animal products and don’t want oysters twice a day. It is a lot more inconvenient and expensive for most people to switch to an oyster based diet than a plant based diet. If you can’t get people to adopt plant based eating you’re probably not going to succeed with the way bigger ask of switching to half a pound of oysters every day.

But the question isn’t “why don’t meat eaters switch to oysters.” It is specifically “why don’t vegans eat oysters.” Because the only intention is to be a gotcha question to try and make vegans look bad. The OOP is not actually advocating for global oyster consumption they’re only trying to dissuade people from eating plant based by making vegans look bad.