6 ms·
Can you site these studies, please. And do any of these studies take into account the offsetting massive loss of wetlands world-wide (which now no longer releas
by jackfoxy 14y ago
Can you site these studies, please. And do any of these studies take into account the offsetting massive loss of wetlands world-wide (which now no longer release methane into the atmosphere) over the last couple centuries from destruction of swamps. (e.g. when Saddam Hussein drained the Tigris–Euphrates marshlands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigris%E2%80%93Euphrates_river_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigris%E2%80%93Euphrates_river_...)
- DennisP 14y agoSure. Here's a recent one, for example (pdf hosted at motherjones but it's from the journal Climatic Change). http://www.motherjones.com/files/04-11shale_gas_footprint_fulltextpdf.pdf http://www.motherjones.com/files/04-11shale_gas_footprint_fu... And here's a short article in Time that mentions several studies: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2111562,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2111562,00.ht... The industry has disputed the data of some studies but also strongly resists efforts to shore up the data by better measuring methane leakage. The direct greenhouse effects of methane vs. CO2 are not seriously in dispute, being a matter of basic physics. So I don't see how the level of methane emissions 200 years ago is relevant to the question of whether coal or gas is causing a greater greenhouse effect right now, per unit energy. I'll mention though that while we may have less swampland, we've also got new methane releases from melting permafrost and clathrates.
- easp 14y agoAlso, the loss of wetlands is a huge environmental negative in other ways. The oceans are in serious trouble, and that trouble often starts at the margins between land and water. Also, cheap natural gas is helping fuel recovery of tar sands, which brings its own raft of problems.