5 ms·
The article title is misleading though. It was for 1 day that they emitted more. So overall about 1% of us emissions if you average for the year or 100 times le
by siilats 11y ago
The article title is misleading though. It was for 1 day that they emitted more. So overall about 1% of us emissions if you average for the year or 100 times less.
- mikeash 11y agoHow is it misleading? The title seems to be saying exactly that. Or was it edited?
- aidenn0 11y agoIf the fires only burn e.g. 1 day per year, then they emit far less per day on average than the US.
- masklinn 11y agoThe title implies continuous superiority of indonesian emissions, not that they out-produced the US emissions for a peak day (or 20, out of 365)
- mikeash 11y agoI don't see it. Maybe because I already knew that the fires aren't a continuous thing?
- paublyrne 11y agoTitle says 'per' day, meaning each day, implying continuity.
- mikeash 11y agoI guess it depends on what the complaint is about it being misleading. I thought the complaint was that the headline somehow implied they're always emitting more, year-round. But maybe it's something else? Note that the original correction is also completely wrong, as it says the fires emitted more for one day, while it's actually for a total of 26 days so far and probably set to increase further.
- mcherm 11y agoOriginal Article Title: Indonesia’s palm oil fires are emitting more greenhouse gases every day than the entire US More Accurate Title: Indonesia’s palm oil fires are emitting more greenhouse gases on some days than the entire US
- nathangrant 11y ago"On 26 days from the period of Sept. 1 to Oct. 14, their daily emissions surpassed those of the entire US" It seems they claim 26 days not 1, but you are correct the initial assumption readers will come to is that every day they exceed US emissions.
- siilats 11y agoEven though the article claims this, 26 days would be 7% and I cannot see this being true. They must use some creative measurement that measures 10% of us emissions or something like this. There is no way that the emissions are more than the weight of the burning material plus oxygen and there is no way an island can burn thru so many tones every year
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dougmany 11y agoIt is also misleading in that burning trees and burning fossil fuels is very different in terms of global warming. The carbon trees are made of was extracted from the air as the tree grew so the net added to at atmosphere is zero. The carbon from fossil fuels was nicely sequestered before it was dug up an burnt, adding to total carbon concentration in the air. Edit: OK I read the second half about peat and yes, the peat was sequestered before the fire so that is not good.
- seunosewa 11y agoAlso, methane. It's worse than CO2 for 2 reasons: (1) It contributes far more to global warming, pound for pound. (2) Once you emit it, you can't take it back by planting trees, etc.
- masklinn 11y agoThen again methane naturally reacts with hydroxyl radicals into CO2 and water. The normal lifecycle of atmospheric methane is ~10 years.
- dang 11y agoOk, we changed the title in an attempt to make that clear.