14 ms·
Reducing methane is the fastest strategy available to reduce warming
- _y5hn 4y agoMethane concentrations have been accellerating the past decade, so better do it quickly: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/ https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/
- OrvalWintermute 4y agoThat depends on which sources you are measuring. Many swamps produce an obnoxiously huge amount of methane, so much so you can smell it everywhere "Swamp gas". Across the planet we have turned profligate methane producing swampland into land for cities and farmland.
- ncmncm 4y agoYet, many of these same swamplands are also sequestering carbon at a prodigious rate. People dig up and burn the peat they once sequestered it all in, for fuel. So, we would probably be better off with more of even-though-methane-burping swamplands than less.
- autosharp 4y agoWhile there might exist a lot of smelly swamps, CH4 is odorless so not a super stinky swamp smell substance.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago> While there might exist a lot of smelly swamps, CH4 is odorless so not a super stinky swamp smell substance Swamp gas has its smell from the associated compounds made with it, just like the methane we use has its stink from Ethanethiol additives, similarly, sulfur based. Still methane though!
- Jensson 4y agoThat is because Asia started adding more cattle. USA and Europe are not the biggest factors here unlike other global warming sources, since the amount of meat each person can consume is limited. Convincing Americans to stop eating meat wont do much when India and Brazil has twice as much cattle as USA does and continues to add more. You'd need to convince India to stop having so many cows, good luck with that. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cattle-livestock-count-heads https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cattle-livestock-count-he...
- qikInNdOutReply 4y agoIf one could build a high altitude ballon, with a catalysator foil as hide, that ballon could convert the methan into carbon-dioxide
- LatteLazy 4y agoEven completely eliminating methane will not reduce warming, it will only reduce (slightly) the rate of acceleration of the rate of warming. There are really 2 viable strategies here: Do nothing, or so something effective. The world refuses either. EDIT: Since people have asked, this is my logic... The amount of warming depends on the amount of gas (CO2, CH4 or other) in the atmosphere. Stopping all emissions today would not change the huge amounts all ready up there. They will remain there and active for decades-centuries. So we are locked in for a certain amount of warming (2 degrees so far last I checked), it just has not happened yet. The rate of emissions just controls how much more warming and how much sooner the existing warming will occur. This is one of the core problems with Human responses to the problem: people think they can wait until it gets 'bad enough' then stop their emissions and things will improve. But they will actually keep getting worse because of the lag between emissions and effects. As for CO2 vs Methane, Methane is responsible for about 20% of all man made warming (1). So eliminating it completely would still leave 80% of (future) warming... This is because we emit a lot, lot more CO2 than Methane. The division is really a false one IMHO, because a lot of methane comes from coal mining and oil/gas extraction. So unless you stop using fossil fuels (the number 1 CO2 source) you cannot stop methane emissions... What all this really comes down to is that people really really want a magic bullet that will make climate change disappear. But just because you really want one doesn't mean it exists... 1: https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane Second Edit: Temperature is like distance Gas levels is like speed Gas emission rates is like acceleration. Edit 2: Reducing emissions does not make you go backwards. You are still hurting forwards, you are even still accelerating. You're just not accelerating as rapidly...
- dilippkumar 4y ago> Even completely eliminating methane will not reduce warming, it will only reduce (slightly) the rate of acceleration of the rate of warming. Can you share some references?
- blueflow 4y agoThe article itself: > Methane accounts for half of the average 1.0 degrees C of warming the world suffered over the past decade and reducing methane is the fastest strategy available to reduce warming. The other half of the warming will continue even without Methane.
- paulsutter 4y agoMethane lasts about 9 years in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 lasts 300-1000 years
- blueflow 4y agoAnd Methane decomposes into CO2 and Water. So Methane is, in sum, always worse than the same amount of CO2.
- gumby 4y agoMethane (CH4) causes 80-100X the radiative forcing than CO2. So even though CO2 levels are >400 ppm and CH4 is "only" 2 ppm (natural levels are about 1/3 of that) the rise of methane levels is estimated to be responsible for a temperature rise of about 0.5 C -- in other words a third of anthropogenic temperature rise.
- bmismyname 4y agoWhich is why the carbon needs to stay in the ground. But we're taking it out and pumping it into the atmosphere as fast as we can so that we can get a new iPhone every year.
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoAnything to avoid actually dealing with fossil fuels. Keep the money flowing until every drop of oil is pumped and every ton of coal is burned.
- tirpen 4y agoIt's possible to do both.
- bendbro 4y agoNo because I will prevent you.
- blueflow 4y agoThis, so much. All efforts are futile if we continue to dig out extra carbon (oil, coal, limestone) and insert it into the carbon cycle, making the whole climate situation worse every day.
- rtev 4y agoIf you want something immediately actionable you can do, cow farming is a major contributor of global methane (as well as deforestation). Cutting out beef shows a personal commitment to sustainability.
- dotcoma 4y agoOn a personal level, eat less meat. Let’s say half of what you are used to. On a systemic level, you need products like Mootral that help cut the methane emitted by cows.
- linsomniac 4y agoA couple years ago my son and I watched the Mark Rober video "Feeding a fake burger to Bill Gates to save the world" [1], and one of the takeaways from that is "you don't have to go full vegetarian, you can take a step by doing Meatless Mondays". I don't recall if his video talked about Methane, I do recall it talking about the staggering amount of water that is involved in making meat, and I live in a high plains desert, so water is something on my mind. It's been fun taking small steps. [1] https://youtu.be/-k-V3ESHcfA https://youtu.be/-k-V3ESHcfA
- top_sigrid 4y agoThe wording of the article - and also of the title here - is very misleading. > Methane accounts for half of the average 1.0 degrees C of warming the world suffered over the past decade and reducing methane is the fastest strategy available to reduce warming. The United States, in partnership with the European Union, is leading the Global Methane Pledge to reduce overall methane emissions by 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030. Reducing yearly methane emissions will NOT reduce warming. The article is about reducing the amount of additionally emitted methane in the future.
- phepranto 4y agoHow does reducing emissions not reduce (future) warming? It doesn't revert warming, but that's not being stated here afaict.
- anonporridge 4y agoWhen I read "reduce warming" I interpret that as slow the rate of future warming, not reverse the warming of the past. Since methane is a drastically more potent warming gas than C02, but eventually degrades into C02 on the scale of decades, skipping the decades of heightened warming effect in the atmosphere by burning emitted methane to C0w will have the effect of reducing the rate of future warming, and importantly buy us more time to ultimately solve the problem. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
- marcosdumay 4y agoNo, the title is not misleading that way. The warming caused by methane is proportional to the exponential average of emissions, with a ~20 years half-life. Reducing the rate of emissions literally reduces the total warming from methane. The one point where the article is misleading is that it reduces the warming as long as you keep the effort. If you stop doing it, the warming comes back in ~40 years as if you never did anything. Methane is very different from carbon dioxide, because it doesn't accumulate forever. It tends to break people's intuition.
- zackees 4y ago
- ortusdux 4y agoFortunately, satellite based CH4 detection is now becoming precise and reliable enough to be usable in the search for methane sources. GHGSat satellites have a 25m resolution, and their sensor equipped airplanes can narrow it down to <1m. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-new-generation-of-satellites-is-helping-authorities-track-methane-emissions-180979181/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-new-generati... https://www.ghgsat.com/en/ https://www.ghgsat.com/en/ Roughly 1/3rd of emissions are from livestock. Hopefully the research into seaweed additives for feed pan out with their estimated 75% reduction. https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces...
- rtev 4y agoIn the meantime, beef alternatives are quite convincing these days. It’s a fairly small step to take that can dramatically lower your individual footprint.
- OrvalWintermute 4y agoThe people preaching to us about reducing our footprints, are the same ones taking their private jets to Davos, and emitting a lifetime of CO2 in the process. Sorry, going to skip the highly processed chemicals plants that is fake meat, and will pass on the bug burgers too. No crickets for dinner here!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- virgildotcodes 4y agoI mean, the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians I know own zero private jets. That said, even if they did, and we all took the route of dismissing any change on the basis that the advocates of that change aren't perfect, as no advocates ever are, well then it seems that nothing would ever change.
- api 4y agoMethane has a short half life in the atmosphere though, so this in no way reduces the need to cut CO2.
- valgor 4y agoCO2 is not the only molecule that causes the greenhouse effect. Methane is far more effective at heating up the atmosphere despite its short half life. That is why it is so dangerous.
- anonporridge 4y agoMethane degrades to water and C02. So, every bit of methane in the atmosphere spends decades as a drastically more potent warming gas than C02 (25x more), and then becomes C02 to continue warming at a lower potency.
- krallja 4y agoIt's spelled see-oh-two, not see-zero-two. In each molecule of CO2: * "C" is carbon. There is one (implied) carbon atom. * "O" is oxygen. There are two oxygen atoms.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- valgor 4y agoWhole article about methane emission. Not one mentioned about cows.
- photochemsyn 4y agoMethane, molecule per molecule, has an infrared-cross section about 20 times that of carbon dioxide. However, the current ratio of methane (1.9 ppm) to CO2 (420 ppm) is only ~ 1/220, so the total methane forcing is about 10% that of CO2, very roughly. (Pre-industrial methane was only 0.6 ppm as per ice core data) Note also Arctic permafrost is going to be a steady source of methane as it thaws, at a relatively slow rate, currently only 1% of the total atmospheric methane budget. Shallow marine sediments are another likely source, although that methane might get gobbled up by marine bacteria before it exits to the atmosphere, to some extent. In any case the stated goal of 'a rapid reduction in methane emissions to 30% below 2020 levels' would have little noticeable effect on warming rates over the next century. Just look at the global trend rate as well, methane's at record levels and the rate is steepening, not flattening. https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-methane-set-another-record-during-2021 https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-me...
- scrozart 4y agoThanks for actually using data and thoughtful comment. This thread is a microcosm for HN's decline - loads of flip comments and even more supposition without any sources.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago> In any case the stated goal of 'a rapid reduction in methane emissions to 30% below 2020 levels' would have little noticeable effect on warming rates over the next century. > Just look at the global trend rate as well, methane's at record levels and the rate is steepening, not flattening. ^ This is the problem! Methane is 25x worse than CO2. Exponential growth instead of a 30% reduction (and then flat or still declining) makes a big difference! Over the span of 3 years - not really. Over the span of 30 years, yes!
- at_compile_time 4y ago>Methane, molecule per molecule, has an infrared-cross section about 20 times that of carbon dioxide. How do you square that with the IPCC estimate that methane is 84 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period?
- OrvalWintermute 4y agoSince the Last Glacial Maximum >20k years ago, the trend has been a warming one, and this predates our oil based economy, and the rise of largescale human population. We are likely heading to reversion to the mean around temperature, water levels, CO2, and others
- _nrdo 4y agoThe problem is the speed. See https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- OrvalWintermute 4y agoOf course, there was a very fast freeze during the Younger Dryas. Hence why you provide a graphic that selectively cut it out. 10º C in just a few decades Checkmate!
- ajross 4y agoThis is simply not true. There is absolutely nothing about current climate change that can be explained as merely continued epoch-scale changes. There has been a very sharp and very pronounced hook in the temperature curve over the last few decades (and a bleedingly obvious hypothesis as to why) that matches almost nothing in the geological record (supervolcano eruptions and global-scale impacts are the only things that happen on this kind of time scale, not ice ages!). There is absolutely zero scientific basis behind the idea you're positing here. Please stop.
- OrvalWintermute 4y agoGlobal recession of glaciers is not a localized phenom. Nor is oceanic rise. Just look at Doggerland! Sea levels were what, 300-400 feet below now during the Younger Dryas? > There is absolutely zero scientific basis behind the idea you're positing here. Please stop. Poppycock. There is plenty of evidence of oceanic increase and decrease as a part of longterm global trends around freezing and warming cycles.
- jarenmf 4y ago
- anonporridge 4y agoSome bitcoin mining startups are looking to start providing a strong economic incentive to collect and efficiently burn waste methane that you can't otherwise do anything with. Since vented methane eventually degrades into C02 anyway, after decades of 25x more potent warming, this a strong net positive for tackling climate change. https://www.mswmanagement.com/home/blog/21277137/editors-blog-can-you-mine-bitcoin-on-your-landfill https://www.mswmanagement.com/home/blog/21277137/editors-blo... In some cases, we can use the stick of regulation to require organizations to efficiently burn their methane at a pure cost to themselves, but that may not work on a global scale in a places with weak governance. But the carrot of profit may be extremely effective at proliferating waste methane burning worldwide.
- andai 4y agoIf methane is a fuel, why is it considered waste and released into the atmosphere? Edit: Oh, here it's literally being released by rotting garbage, the idea is to harvest it.
- anonporridge 4y agoLack of transport infrastructure. When byproduct methane is conveniently located (like in the middle of a city) it often is piped through gas lines to be sold, or a power plant is built on site and connected to the grid. Many landfills already have power plants built on them, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/california-power-generation-and-power-sources/biomass/landfill-gas-power-plants https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/california-power-gene... The problem is when it is very remotely located, and the amount of gas is far too low to economically justify building out gas pipes or electric transmission lines.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- thegayretard69 4y ago
- thegayretard69 4y ago
- datavirtue 4y agoThe second fastest way is to plant a fuck ton of trees. So many that the human race identify as Druids.
- 11235813213455 4y agoso many that there will be less room for swimming pools, golf, circuits, tennis, and many other unnecessary things that pollute, double win
- datavirtue 4y agoYou can still have all that stuff. We have stripped far more trees than nessesaary without realizing that they were keeping us alive. There are plenty of voids in between highway lanes, in the middle of parking lots etc. If you want an example of what it should look like check out Hilton Head island or Washington state. Shaded parking lots and you can't find Walmart through all the trees without a map.
- 11235813213455 4y agosure, and we could go a few steps further because trees tolerate but are not fond of asphalt, concrete, gum, oil of parking lots. We could reduce the dependance to cars, cars take up to 26% of the space in cities, and more in pollution (25-45% of pollution), most of if isn't even from exhaust, it's from tires and dust put back in the air, they participate a lot in the heat islands phenomenon. Let's turn to small and light vehicles, designed for cities
- datavirtue 4y agoI agree. I was looking at parking lots and realized the surface areas of the vehicles multiply the size of the heat island effect. I estimated that a typical vehicle increases the surface area by 1.5-2 times the surface it covers.
- linsomniac 4y agoAccording to this youtube video on the new climate bill analysis [1], the Methane is (1) entirely usable fuel, (2) 80x (IIRC) more greenhouse causing than other carbon molecules and (3) leaking from infrastructure, so the climate bill includes provisions to track down leaks from infrastructure and encourage the fixing of those leaks. [1] https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s
- dotcoma 4y agoDoes anybody have first-hand knowledge of how well (or not) supplements for cows such as Mootral that are supposed to cut down methane emissions work?
- bparsons 4y agoThis stuff is really low hanging fruit from a climate perspective. It is quite shocking that the US is only now beginning to look at dealing with fugitive methane emissions.
- paganel 4y agoAs I understand "death to cows!" has become the new "death to cars!"? Where will they stop?
- twiss 4y agoIt's a bit ironic to frame this as calling for "death to cows", given the purpose that cows are often being kept for. But in any case, people have been calling for sustainable food sources and transportation methods for a long time, neither are a new "fad". > Where will they stop? Once our usage of the planet's resources settles at a sustainable level?
- paganel 4y ago> Once our usage of the planet's resources settles at a sustainable level? Even if that means less and worst food for the masses? Who decided that? The hypocrisy and paternalism on display in this whole climate change discussion is through the the roof.
- timeon 4y ago> "death to cars!"? Are you against killing cows?
- paganel 4y agoYes, I’m against killing the cow industry. I also prefer living cows from which I can get milk than cows that we’ve terminated for beef.
- Proven 4y ago
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago"Natural Gas" is 70% to 90% methane. The naming "Natural" is mostly a PR gimmick. Burning it in power plants, industry, and households is definitely part of the problem. Everywhere in the infrastructure from extraction to transport to use, to all the abandoned wells everywhere a long the way it is leaking. This a very large gap in all these government/corporate actions.
- kurupt213 4y agoCFCs are much worse than CO2 too
- westurner 4y agoCan we 3d print e.g. geodesic domes to capture the waste methane (natural gas) from abandoned well sites? "NASA Instrument Tracks Power Plant Methane Emissions" (2020) https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia24019-nasa-instrument-tracks-power-plant-methane-emissions https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia24019-nasa-instrument-tra... :: https://methane.jpl.nasa.gov/ https://methane.jpl.nasa.gov/ (California,) > NASA conducts periodic methane studies using the next-generation Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS-NG) instrument. These studies are determining the locations and magnitudes of the largest methane emission sources across California, including those associated with landfills, refineries, dairies, wastewater treatment plants, oil and gas fields, power plants, and natural gas infrastructure. "NASA 3D Printed Habitat Challenge" (2019) @CentennialChallenge: 3d print [habitats] with little to no water and local ~soil. https://www.google.com/search?q=NASA+3D+Printed+Habitat+Challenge https://www.google.com/search?q=NASA+3D+Printed+Habitat+Chal... What about IDK ~geodesic domes for capturing waste methane from abndanoned wells?