3 ms·

It's not a NYT-quality chart, but I've created a visualization of the problem here: https://www.uscleanenergyfund.com/blog/visualizing-the-california-methane-l

It's not a NYT-quality chart, but I've created a visualization of the problem here: https://www.uscleanenergyfund.com/blog/visualizing-the-california-methane-leaks/ https://www.uscleanenergyfund.com/blog/visualizing-the-calif... Spoiler alert: this "catastrophe" is a minor blip on our nation's overall greenhouse emissions.

npunt 11y ago
Very nice, thanks for sharing! Definitely puts things in perspective. Even at its size though, its a preventable leak, and any intervention is going to look small compared to our overall output.
graeme 11y ago
I'm confused by cow methane emissions. This leak comes from the ground. So obviously it's a net addition of carbon to the atmosphere. But cows get their methane from plants. Ultimately, are these emissions in the same sense that this leak was an emission? Meaning that if you burn a tree, then plant a tree, your net emission is zero, once the tree grows large enough. Is it the same with cow methane emissions, ultimately? Obviously, the methane is a short run problem, since methane is particularly impactful for climate change. I'm wondering if cows produce a long run net gain of carbon in the atmosphere, or if its merely transient.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  I'll take a stab at answering: we produce more plants cows like to eat than we otherwise would, methane has a significantly stronger greenhouse effect than CO2, and if we didn't produce plants for cows to turn into methane, the same ground would produce different plants that get mixed into the soil (where bacteria will produce some methane, but likely not as much) and the carbon is thus removed from the atmosphere. So to oversimplify, with cows we turn CO2 into methane, without cows nature turns CO2 into soil.
  - graeme 11y ago
    Does intensive agriculture have a similar effect? It sounds like the net carbon increase is due to intensive grazing depleting soil capacity. Of course, a forest would have more carbon than pasture, just wondering about the net impact of cows vs. some other kind of agriculture.
- strommen 11y ago
  Adding carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) to the atmosphere are two completely different things. CO2 can be re-captured by plants and photosynthesized to separate carbon + oxygen. So as you pointed out, planting a tree and burning a tree cancel each other out in theory (if you burn the tree 100% cleanly). CH4 breaks down into other stuff, but it doesn't go back into plants. To answer your last question, methane is transient (~10 years or so). But as long as the cows are around, that really doesn't matter.
- gozur88 11y ago
  It's a bit more complicated than that. A lot of diesel fuel and natural gas goes into the feed cows eat.

npunt 11y ago

Very nice, thanks for sharing! Definitely puts things in perspective. Even at its size though, its a preventable leak, and any intervention is going to look small compared to our overall output.

graeme 11y ago

I'm confused by cow methane emissions. This leak comes from the ground. So obviously it's a net addition of carbon to the atmosphere. But cows get their methane from plants. Ultimately, are these emissions in the same sense that this leak was an emission? Meaning that if you burn a tree, then plant a tree, your net emission is zero, once the tree grows large enough. Is it the same with cow methane emissions, ultimately? Obviously, the methane is a short run problem, since methane is particularly impactful for climate change. I'm wondering if cows produce a long run net gain of carbon in the atmosphere, or if its merely transient.

nitrogen 11y ago
I'll take a stab at answering: we produce more plants cows like to eat than we otherwise would, methane has a significantly stronger greenhouse effect than CO2, and if we didn't produce plants for cows to turn into methane, the same ground would produce different plants that get mixed into the soil (where bacteria will produce some methane, but likely not as much) and the carbon is thus removed from the atmosphere. So to oversimplify, with cows we turn CO2 into methane, without cows nature turns CO2 into soil.
- graeme 11y ago
  Does intensive agriculture have a similar effect? It sounds like the net carbon increase is due to intensive grazing depleting soil capacity. Of course, a forest would have more carbon than pasture, just wondering about the net impact of cows vs. some other kind of agriculture.
strommen 11y ago
Adding carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) to the atmosphere are two completely different things. CO2 can be re-captured by plants and photosynthesized to separate carbon + oxygen. So as you pointed out, planting a tree and burning a tree cancel each other out in theory (if you burn the tree 100% cleanly). CH4 breaks down into other stuff, but it doesn't go back into plants. To answer your last question, methane is transient (~10 years or so). But as long as the cows are around, that really doesn't matter.
gozur88 11y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that. A lot of diesel fuel and natural gas goes into the feed cows eat.