4 ms·
And to be clear (for anyone who doesn't know, I presume parent does and simply didn't think it necessary to explain), this "carbon neutrality" argument is entir
by snewman 3y ago
And to be clear (for anyone who doesn't know, I presume parent does and simply didn't think it necessary to explain), this "carbon neutrality" argument is entirely bogus, because one molecule of methane has far more climate impact than one molecule of carbon dioxide, even though they each contain a single carbon atom (CH₄ vs. CO₂).
Apparently, the underlying science is basically that "wigglier" molecules have more propensity to intercept photons, and that's why molecules like methane and refrigerants have more impact than the relatively simple CO₂.
- dtgriscom 3y ago> "wigglier" molecules Don't get technical with me.
- hkt 3y agoThe proper "exchange rate" between CO2 and other molecules is known as the GWP, Global Warming Potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential Methane is 25x worse than carbon dioxide - despite having the same amount of carbon.
- dylan604 3y agoAnd to be even more clear, if it is a statement about global warming, climate change, green energy or any thing along those lines coming from an official from Texas, you know it is just going to be "wigglier" than any molecule.