5 ms·
I believe Vox slightly screwed this up but it's an understandable mistake: the article[1] refers to CO2 equivalent of emissions, not literal CO2. In particular
by nicklecompte 3y ago
I believe Vox slightly screwed this up but it's an understandable mistake: the article[1] refers to CO2 equivalent of emissions, not literal CO2. In particular methane from fertilizers seems to have a more negative impact on overall greenhouse gases than whatever CO2 the plants are absorbing.
[1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acd5e8 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acd5e8
- api 3y agoIt has a much shorter atmospheric half life though, on the order of a decade vs thousands of years for CO2. If we cut methane emissions this will have a near term impact whereas cutting CO2 emissions just stops things from getting worse as fast. It reverses nothing.
- hanniabu 3y agoAtmospheric methane converts to co2
- bsza 3y agoMethane’s greenhouse effect is 80 times more powerful than that of CO2, so cutting methane right now would have near-immediate effects as it would convert to less potent CO2 in a matter of years. Whereas cutting CO2 would stop things from getting worse, but wouldn’t have an immediate reversal effect like methane would. It’s a one-off trick that would buy us some time (assuming we can implement it).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]