3 ms·
Or by burning coal instead of NG.
by tempestn 3y ago
Or by burning coal instead of NG.
- defrost 3y ago[flagged]
- elric 3y agoApparently that one isn't quite so clear cut. At least in the case of LNG, its greenhouse gas emmissions are pretty awful when you look at how much methane leaks out into the atmosphere (e.g. during processing and transport). At least with coal, it's unlikely to end up in the atmosphere unless its burnt. Liquefying and transporting natural gas across an ocean by ship seems like a pretty stupid thing to do. But here we are, doing just that.
- GeoAtreides 3y agoMethane from coal mines is actually a problem: "Methane (CH4) emissions from coal mining and abandoned coal mines accounted for about 8% of total U.S. methane emissions in 2019. It was the fifth-largest methane-emitting sector" https://www.epa.gov/cmop/about-coal-mine-methane https://www.epa.gov/cmop/about-coal-mine-methane
- elric 3y agoThanks for pointing that out. Even if it is depressing that even abandoned coal mines are still contributing to greenhouse gas emmissions. There are thousands of operational coal mines. Probably hundreds of thousands of abandoned ones. How we are ever going to curb climate change is beyond me.
- blooalien 3y ago> "How we are ever going to curb climate change is beyond me." At this point, we're simply not going to "curb climate change", sadly. We've left the lunatics in charge of the asylum for entirely too long, and they've set the place ablaze. All that's left to do now is stand back and watch it burn while the lunatics blame all of us for the fire they started.