3 ms·

Unfortunately it's not that simple. If you look at the Wikipedia page on GHG [1], the warming effect of methane is maybe ~20% of the total GHG impact. So a 70%

Unfortunately it's not that simple. If you look at the Wikipedia page on GHG [1], the warming effect of methane is maybe ~20% of the total GHG impact. So a 70% reduction of 11% of methane, which is a ~20% contributor is an overall warming improvement of ~1.5%. Which is still great, but not going to save the planet on its own. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

rq1 3y ago
Methane is 50x more potent at warming compared to CO2. Methane emissions reduction should be considered the top priority despite representing only 20% of the total anthropogenic GHG.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  Thank you. This is why I don't know how to approach the math. I have a hand-wavy: This is potentially not quite 2 percent of total GHG emissions per year, but I don't know the weighted value of each type of gas and hypothetically something like 50 to 100 projects "like" this one each year for a decade gets us in the ballpark of stopping man made climate change. Can 8 billion people produce 50 to 100 projects (each year) that move the needle this much? This works in part because it was initially a hard sell to get the farmers to agree to participate in the experiment but it went so well that halfway through the year, 10 more farmers chose to drain their rice paddies of water. So you don't even have to talk people into taking a hit of some kind for the greater good. They will convert to this because of the higher crop yield and money in their pockets -- assuming (or as soon as) they can afford the transitional costs and a fund could be created to help with that to speed up adoption.
- Xixi 3y ago
  Methane is responsible for about 30% of the current global warming, so it clearly is a priority. That said: Methane is transient, while CO2 accumulates. Methane decays quite quickly into CO2, which is why when accounted for over 20 years methane is considered 86x more potent than CO2, and over one century "only" 28x as potent. Any CO2 emitted today we will have to deal with for centuries to come. That's not the case for methane. So while lowering methane will yield the most benefits in the short term, thinking longer term, it's really CO2 emissions that need to be lowered urgently. Said differently, using a very crude reasoning with a hypothetical scenario: cutting methane emissions in 2025 rather than in 2050 would have little to no effect on the climate of 2100. In both cases the methane will have mostly decayed, and thus will stop capturing heat from the sun (maybe 2100 is a bit early, but you get the idea). But cutting CO2 emissions in 2025 rather than 2050 would have a dramatic effect on the climate of 2100, as these 25 years of CO2 emissions would mostly remain right there in the atmosphere. It's obviously over-simplified, as global warming is having irreversible effects right now, and methane decaying will not revive species gone extinct in the meantime. So I'm certainly not arguing that we should not do anything against methane emissions. But that should not be done at the expense of fighting against CO2 emissions, rather on top of it...
  - rq1 3y ago
    I do not disagree but there’s one thing that should be considered right now: methane pockets in (melting) glaciers. The phenomenon is “exponential” (or the first part of a sigmoid) precisely because of this chain reaction. CO2 can be recaptured by forests eventually if we don’t destroy everything too quickly, thus why the immediate effect is really important.
DoreenMichele 3y ago
I didn't suggest it would single-handedly save the planet. Though it's a fair point to clarify that rice is 11 percent of methane emissions, not 11 percent of total greenhouse gasses. There is a lot of math involved here that I don't know how to begin to navigate, frankly, to try to estimate just how big an impact this (potentially) is.
- Ntrails 3y ago
  Some of what I view as core problem with approaching this issue is simply how easy it is to do the maths and say "but this is only a small impact in the greater problem". - Air travel could be banned and we're still hosed - All the cars could go electric and we're still hosed - Kill all the cattle and we're still hosed etc etc. It really is freerider/tragedy of the commons situation, lot of finger pointing and a lot of rational self interest. In the end I can only view this as unfettered good news, assuming we can scale it out
  - myshpa 3y ago
    Our society is an extremely complex system. We're consuming and polluting more than the environment can handle (overshoot). Our economy, consumption and pollution is growing exponentially, in a finite environment (one planet). It would be naive that in this point one single solution would solve our problems forever. In fact, we should repair as many things as possible in one go, to get to the equilibrium as soon as possible. Few things that could get us on the right track: - remove the drivers of the exponential growth (reform the financial system, degrowth, ubi) - speed up the transition to renewables (while we have fossil fuels, peak oil is not far away) - stop polluting everything (plastics, pfas, pesticides/herbicides ...) - reform agriculture (leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss, overfishing) - plant based diets (animal ag. is 80+% of all agriculture, free an area the size of both Americas) - reforest/rewild freed pastures to restore forests, biodiversity and water cycle (no monocultures, multi level canopies, no harvesting, old growth) - by reforesting animal. ag. lands alone we could store enough carbon to cause new little ice age and reverse the warming - reform / automate plant agriculture - repair soils, stop pesticides/herbicides (insects, pollinators)
vasco 3y ago
> Methane has GWP (over 20 years) of 81.2[4] meaning that, for example, a leak of a tonne of methane is equivalent to emitting 81.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Similarly a tonne of nitrous oxide, from manure or paddy fields for example, is equivalent to 273 tonnes of carbon dioxide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
- nl 3y ago
  Nevertheless the math on the impact is ~correct. It's very much a change worth making though.
philjohn 3y ago
This feels like the adage of marginal gains. Any one change by itself is small, but they compound. Used successfully by british cycling, I wonder if this would be similar?

rq1 3y ago

Methane is 50x more potent at warming compared to CO2. Methane emissions reduction should be considered the top priority despite representing only 20% of the total anthropogenic GHG.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
Thank you. This is why I don't know how to approach the math. I have a hand-wavy: This is potentially not quite 2 percent of total GHG emissions per year, but I don't know the weighted value of each type of gas and hypothetically something like 50 to 100 projects "like" this one each year for a decade gets us in the ballpark of stopping man made climate change. Can 8 billion people produce 50 to 100 projects (each year) that move the needle this much? This works in part because it was initially a hard sell to get the farmers to agree to participate in the experiment but it went so well that halfway through the year, 10 more farmers chose to drain their rice paddies of water. So you don't even have to talk people into taking a hit of some kind for the greater good. They will convert to this because of the higher crop yield and money in their pockets -- assuming (or as soon as) they can afford the transitional costs and a fund could be created to help with that to speed up adoption.
Xixi 3y ago
Methane is responsible for about 30% of the current global warming, so it clearly is a priority. That said: Methane is transient, while CO2 accumulates. Methane decays quite quickly into CO2, which is why when accounted for over 20 years methane is considered 86x more potent than CO2, and over one century "only" 28x as potent. Any CO2 emitted today we will have to deal with for centuries to come. That's not the case for methane. So while lowering methane will yield the most benefits in the short term, thinking longer term, it's really CO2 emissions that need to be lowered urgently. Said differently, using a very crude reasoning with a hypothetical scenario: cutting methane emissions in 2025 rather than in 2050 would have little to no effect on the climate of 2100. In both cases the methane will have mostly decayed, and thus will stop capturing heat from the sun (maybe 2100 is a bit early, but you get the idea). But cutting CO2 emissions in 2025 rather than 2050 would have a dramatic effect on the climate of 2100, as these 25 years of CO2 emissions would mostly remain right there in the atmosphere. It's obviously over-simplified, as global warming is having irreversible effects right now, and methane decaying will not revive species gone extinct in the meantime. So I'm certainly not arguing that we should not do anything against methane emissions. But that should not be done at the expense of fighting against CO2 emissions, rather on top of it...
- rq1 3y ago
  I do not disagree but there’s one thing that should be considered right now: methane pockets in (melting) glaciers. The phenomenon is “exponential” (or the first part of a sigmoid) precisely because of this chain reaction. CO2 can be recaptured by forests eventually if we don’t destroy everything too quickly, thus why the immediate effect is really important.

DoreenMichele 3y ago

I didn't suggest it would single-handedly save the planet. Though it's a fair point to clarify that rice is 11 percent of methane emissions, not 11 percent of total greenhouse gasses. There is a lot of math involved here that I don't know how to begin to navigate, frankly, to try to estimate just how big an impact this (potentially) is.

Ntrails 3y ago
Some of what I view as core problem with approaching this issue is simply how easy it is to do the maths and say "but this is only a small impact in the greater problem". - Air travel could be banned and we're still hosed - All the cars could go electric and we're still hosed - Kill all the cattle and we're still hosed etc etc. It really is freerider/tragedy of the commons situation, lot of finger pointing and a lot of rational self interest. In the end I can only view this as unfettered good news, assuming we can scale it out
- myshpa 3y ago
  Our society is an extremely complex system. We're consuming and polluting more than the environment can handle (overshoot). Our economy, consumption and pollution is growing exponentially, in a finite environment (one planet). It would be naive that in this point one single solution would solve our problems forever. In fact, we should repair as many things as possible in one go, to get to the equilibrium as soon as possible. Few things that could get us on the right track: - remove the drivers of the exponential growth (reform the financial system, degrowth, ubi) - speed up the transition to renewables (while we have fossil fuels, peak oil is not far away) - stop polluting everything (plastics, pfas, pesticides/herbicides ...) - reform agriculture (leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss, overfishing) - plant based diets (animal ag. is 80+% of all agriculture, free an area the size of both Americas) - reforest/rewild freed pastures to restore forests, biodiversity and water cycle (no monocultures, multi level canopies, no harvesting, old growth) - by reforesting animal. ag. lands alone we could store enough carbon to cause new little ice age and reverse the warming - reform / automate plant agriculture - repair soils, stop pesticides/herbicides (insects, pollinators)

vasco 3y ago

> Methane has GWP (over 20 years) of 81.2[4] meaning that, for example, a leak of a tonne of methane is equivalent to emitting 81.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Similarly a tonne of nitrous oxide, from manure or paddy fields for example, is equivalent to 273 tonnes of carbon dioxide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

nl 3y ago
Nevertheless the math on the impact is ~correct. It's very much a change worth making though.

philjohn 3y ago

This feels like the adage of marginal gains. Any one change by itself is small, but they compound. Used successfully by british cycling, I wonder if this would be similar?