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

111–120 of 230 posts

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#111

Post by WAHa_06x36 »

ianai wrote: post #37
oliveshell wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sequestration won’t do enough soon enough. This could be methane deposits evaporating from long frozen stores (permafrost and other sources). Methane is a much bigger problem for the atmosphere than carbon and sequestration won’t touch it. If quitting meat sounds tough, consider that I’ve heard the only effective thing to do would be immediately cease all ICE production/use. But oddly feeding cows seaweed would cut t…

Methane also has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere, though, so just decreasing production of it will have a big effect in the short to medium term.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#112

Post by askvictor »

zubspace wrote: post #58

One thing I don't understand is why political leaders aren't all over this? Think about a nation going full green and the effect it could have on neighbouring countries? Or a president understanding, that this problem was of highest importance could be a leader of a global change! Think about the fame! But what do we have instead? Ignorance, unwillingness, a dangerous continuation of the status quo on the state level…

More specifically, the article states that 40-50% of methane emissions could be cut essentially _for free_. Why is industry not doing this?

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#113

Post by keymone »

simonh wrote: post #108
sascha_sl wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is terrible advice, because it makes people think they did "enough" themselves to combat climate change when dropping animal product methane to 0 would not even be close to enough. Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions. These need to be dealt with, swiftly. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

It’s great advice because it’s a tangible change individuals can make immediately. There is very little we can individually do about the 100 companies, or do at all in the short term. This problem will need to be tackled on multiple fronts simultaneously. Advising people not to do something that could make a real difference doesn’t seem particularly helpful. I’m fed up reading comments along the lines of ‘we shouldn’…

The advice may not be as great. Amount of land and water needed to grow crops that sufficiently replace nutrition provided by meat may be worse for climate change than just eating meat. Obviously that only applies to grass-fed cattle. I don’t have a source right now, but the choice is not as obvious as many think.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#114

Post by codingdave »

HaukeHi wrote: post #110
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…

Meatless Mondays won't cut it. But even if we were to offset our worst carbon excesses—such as intercontinental air-travel and meat—ethical consumerism won't solve the climate crisis. Most other people simply won't offset their emissions. We need coordinated policy approaches to climate change. And policy needs to be global in scope. Because even if advanced economies were to reduce their emissions to zero, this woul…

Personally, I'd be more responsive to what you have to say if you were to post comments that were more participatory in the discussions, and not always using your comments to post the same link to the fundraising site you founded.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#115

Post by eb3c90 »

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…

I would also argue that supporting efforts to understand where the methane is coming from would be good.

For example Methane Sat[1] looks like it can cover a wide area and is coming on-line in the time frame to do some good (2020).

[1] https://www.edf.org/climate/how-methanesat-is-different

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#116

Post by jeremyjh »

keymone wrote: post #113
simonh wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s great advice because it’s a tangible change individuals can make immediately. There is very little we can individually do about the 100 companies, or do at all in the short term. This problem will need to be tackled on multiple fronts simultaneously. Advising people not to do something that could make a real difference doesn’t seem particularly helpful. I’m fed up reading comments along the lines of ‘we shouldn’…

The advice may not be as great. Amount of land and water needed to grow crops that sufficiently replace nutrition provided by meat may be worse for climate change than just eating meat. Obviously that only applies to grass-fed cattle. I don’t have a source right now, but the choice is not as obvious as many think.

Isn’t most cattle fed grain?

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#117

Post by bamboozled »

ced wrote: post #109
sascha_sl wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is terrible advice, because it makes people think they did "enough" themselves to combat climate change when dropping animal product methane to 0 would not even be close to enough. Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions. These need to be dealt with, swiftly. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

All companies exist to serve customer demand, or to serve companies that serve customer demand. Sure, they should be regulated (... thus increasing the price of consumer goods?) On an individual level, traveling less, buying less stuff, or buying less damaging stuff is the best that most people can do.

I think non-essentials and some types of food via an emissions tax would be a great thing.

For example, flying is so cheap I would say people "over do it" just because they can. I often think it would be great if there was more cost associated with air fair to factor in the environmental damage each flight causes.

Yeah people will be inconvenienced slightly but what is the alternative? Holiday in locations closer to home? Go by rail? Video conferencing ? They all seem like good options compared to the alternative.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#119

Post by andrepd »

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 impact of my choice as a consumer is a blip in the radar compared to the impact of large companies changing their course, or being forced to change their course. Even more, compared to the people making those decisions. We need to take personal responsibility to those concrete people quickly, instead of blaming abstract concepts like "corporations" or "the market".

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#120

Post by mrpopo »

sascha_sl wrote: post #99
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…

This is terrible advice, because it makes people think they did "enough" themselves to combat climate change when dropping animal product methane to 0 would not even be close to enough. Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions. These need to be dealt with, swiftly. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

Most of these companies are Chinese power companies, aramco, etc. How do you deal with them without dealing with humans personal consumption of energy?
Post reply on HN