Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

climatenexus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 230 posts

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#21

Post by lotsofpulp »

dev_dull wrote: post #14
newnewpdro wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great and all but there's over a billion people in India alone and a huge fraction of them are still living in poverty, effectively contributing very little currently to factors like co2 emissions. It won't stay that way for much longer. Quality of life tends to increase, and correspondingly impact increases. We already have far too many people if you consider the quality of life is destined to normalize at th…

> Quality of life tends to increase, and correspondingly impact increases I’m not sure I agree that this is true because it ignores all of the efficiency gains (especially in electronics but in other things as well) we’ve seen the last 50+ years. Not to mention things like renewable solar which is not readily and cheaply available.

The biggest portion of environmental damage is due to transportation, and transportation is due to single family homes causing a need for sprawl. People in India live on top of each other, and I’m sure they’d all like some space if they can afford it. They’d also like to take international vacations.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#22

Post by spraak »

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows.

> Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have larger greenhouse gas impacts than indicated by existing inventories. [1]

[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314392110.abs...

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#23

Post by steve_taylor »

dev_dull wrote: post #13
newnewpdro wrote: post #4

The scale of human activity has become so large that what may seem like fairly trivial variations can be quite impactful thanks to the multiplication factor. Until we substantially reel in the global population size the situation will continue to be rather precarious.

Global birth rate is declining almost across the board. It’s the lowest it’s been in the US in the last 30+ years with no signs of speeding up. Also be careful what you wish for. Some of our most important social programs (such as social security) have intense insolvency issues as birth rates continue to decline.

You’re confusing quantity with its rate of change. If the population stops growing today and remains the same, all those people are still having an impact on the environment.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#24

Post by oliveshell »

spraak wrote: post #22

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…

It’s a nice thought, but even if we accept that the global population doing this would stem the tide of climate change (which I am doubtful it would), one quickly realizes that there is no way that the entire global population is going to stop eating animals, and we are back to feeling hopeless.

I’m increasingly convinced that carbon sequestration on industrial scales is the only serious way to solve this problem.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#25

Post by foxylad »

mises wrote: post #11
newnewpdro wrote: post #4

The scale of human activity has become so large that what may seem like fairly trivial variations can be quite impactful thanks to the multiplication factor. Until we substantially reel in the global population size the situation will continue to be rather precarious.

> reel in the global population size What does this mean? Forced sterilization? One-child policies? I don't ask this to be confrontational, but because it's a difficult question and I honestly want to hear opinions. Access to contraception doesn't make a difference when the culture still says you have 8 kids. This is borne out by what has happened: continued growth of the third-world population. T

By far the most effective measure is to educate and empower women.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#26

Post by aaronbrethorst »

spraak wrote: post #22

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…

Cut down on your consumption of meat. That's good and important.

But it is no substitute for voting.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#27

Post by mirimir »

mullingitover wrote: post #19

Weird that there's no mention of the melting permafrost as a methane source. I thought that was a well understood potential feedback loop for climate change.

There is this, however, as mdorazio notes:

> Potential drivers in the category of increased emissions include emissions from intensive agricultural practices, emissions from oil and gas operations, and increased emissions from wetlands responding to global warming. [This last potential driver is particularly worrisome as it implies the engagement of a global warming feedback loop.]

So maybe "wetlands" is a veiled reference to permafrost. Which in fact are basically frozen wetlands.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#28

Post by mattigames »

spraak wrote: post #22

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…

The only way methane from live-stock is gonna disappear is by either: 1) Lab-created meat 2) Seaweed and other techniques of reducing methane released by cows [0] 3) Less humans due birth control or fortuitous events (e.g. a plague)

[0] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612452/how-seaweed-could-...

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#29

Post by mirimir »

mdorazio wrote: post #2

"That said, most experts in the field suspect that all traditional sources (natural and anthropogenic) are contributing at least in small part to the surge, and that the biggest contributor might be wetlands responding to climate change (though there is some dissent on this point)." New kind of clathrate gun we didn't anticipate?

No, it's one aspect of the clathrate gun. It's all methane trapped in ice. Some in undersea sediments, and some in tundra.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#30

Post by estebank »

mattigames wrote: post #28
spraak wrote: post #22

Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows. > Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have large…

The only way methane from live-stock is gonna disappear is by either: 1) Lab-created meat 2) Seaweed and other techniques of reducing methane released by cows [0] 3) Less humans due birth control or fortuitous events (e.g. a plague) [0] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612452/how-seaweed-could-...

4) Reduce demand.

I'm Argentinean, if I stopped eating meat my passport would probably be revoked. I grew up thinking that it was perfectly normal to eat meat 7 days a week. Even with this background, I started reducing the amount of meat some time back. I'm not vegetarian by any means, but I reduced my meat consumption about 80% without even trying. I'm sure there are lots of people that could too.

> Less humans due birth control or fortuitous events (e.g. a plague)

Like everything, consumption follows a Pareto distribution, where some "whales" drive most of the demand. You can focus on them instead of hoping for lots of people dying.

Also, reduce poverty and the amount of newborns in this planet will naturally decrease precipitously, without any need for a mandate from anyone.

Post reply on HN