Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels • Hacker News Board

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#201

Post by lustysocietyorg » Sun, May 26, 2019, 4:04 PM UTC

ced wrote: post #165

ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions Most of these 100 companies are oil companies, and the emissions from oil they sold on to consumers is unfairly attributed to them. Exxon don't burn oil for fun, they sell it to people to power their cars. This statistic is incredibly misleading.

Are they seriously counting Joe's car's CO2 as Exxon's responsibility? Can I ask for a reference/quote on that?

The deadly misleading headline: Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says (2017-07-10).

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

The stupid original headline: New report shows just 100 companies are source of over 70% of emissions (2017-07-10).

https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-...

CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017 (2017-07).

https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...

Quote:

100 fossil fuel producers and nearly 1 trillion tonnes of greenhouse gas emission.

Are 100 companies causing 71% of carbon emissions?

https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbo...

Quote:

Claim: 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions.

Quote:

Conclusion: Of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from human activity (excluding certain sources like agricultural methane) between 1988 and 2015, 71% originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions released when the fossil fuels they sold were subsequently used by their customers.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#202

Post by 52-6F-62 » Sun, May 26, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

village-idiot wrote: post #199

52-6F-62 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to that— adjusting the diet of cattle to one of red algae has proven to reduce their methane emissions dramatically. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612452/how-seaweed-could-...

Methane release from cattle is largely a by-product of nitrogen fixing fertilizers putting natural methane eating bacteria in the soil into an inactive state. If we stopped using synthetic (and oil based!) fertilizers at least on where the cattle poop, a lot of that methane will get sequestered into the top soil too. Which also explains why the flatulence of 60-100m buffalo before the industrial era didn’t warm the p…

Interesting. I haven’t looked that deeply into the problem, but I’ll have to read about that.

I imagine some locales might be worse for that problem than others, yeah?

Do you have any info you can share?

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#203

Post by skybrian » Sun, May 26, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

halfjoking wrote: post #149

Not sure how this is "unexpected." For 20 years there have been articles/studies saying that the "calthrate gun" containing all the methane stored in Siberia and the arctic is the best reason we need to keep CO2 levels below 400 ppm. Now CO2 is at 415 ppm and we're starting to see the accelerated release of methane and it's "unexpected." Why not interview one of the people who said this is exactly what was going to h…

There's no point quibbling with one word in the headline when the article answers it:

"The 'why' behind this resurgence is hotly debated and not well understood. 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)."

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#204

Post by mikeash » Sun, May 26, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

bubblewrap wrote: post #48

My favorite doomsday scenario at the moment is that it may be earthworms who finally kill us: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/science/earthworms-soil-c... They appear to be venturing into new areas and releasing carbon there, furthering global warming. There are just too many scenarios of that kind. Either we really are doomed, and climate will switch into a new kind of equilibrium hostile to humans. Or, there are…

These doomsday scenarios have happened before. There are mechanisms that quickly bring things back to normal. Unfortunately, “quickly” is on a geological scale. An 8°C temperature raise for 100,000 years would be rather problematic for humanity.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#205

Post by rewq4321 » Sun, May 26, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

ar-jan wrote: post #198

rewq4321 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Global direct greenhouse gas emissions from transportation versus livestock represent 14 versus 5 percent respectively. The FAO's latest number for livestock emissions is 14.5% when considering the full life-cycle. It doesn't matter that we don't have a full life-cycle analysis for transportation - that doesn't change the number for livestock. The author tries to dismiss the 14.5% because "[transportation might be…

It does matter, because it makes sense to focus on the biggest contributors to emissions, where the most gains could be made. The current thinking goes we should eat "less or no meat", when the effort could be put towards not using grain for livestock feed, and promoting other changes such as reducing methane specifically by adding seaweed to the livestock's diet. That's not to mention that grazing is essential to bo…

I think this is a "we shouldn't bother with X because Y also helps (and is more convenient for me), even though they're not mutually exclusive" argument.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#206

Post by jobigoud » Sun, May 26, 2019, 4:46 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #175

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 most impactful, single action any of us need to take is breaking the stronghold that fossil fuel interest have in politics. We can all go vegan today, but if there's no broad, strong policy to decarbonize transport and industry, it won't matter how many bean burgers we eat. We need political power, not just avoidance of beef.

The nice thing about not eating meat is that it's a non exclusive effort. It's just something you integrate in your routine and you can still try to curb carbon emissions at the political level if you think it's the best course of action.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#207

Post by ianai » Sun, May 26, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

rapind wrote: post #166

ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions Most of these 100 companies are oil companies, and the emissions from oil they sold on to consumers is unfairly attributed to them. Exxon don't burn oil for fun, they sell it to people to power their cars. This statistic is incredibly misleading.

Pollution is an externality of the oil industry. Might be better if today's consumer paid for that at the pump rather than future generations dealing with it in the environment. The artificially low price of oil due to postponing / offloading these external costs significantly slows free market innovation of alternatives and efficiencies. So... what's the best way to pay for these negative externals so we don't simpl…

“So... what's the best way to pay for these negative externals so we don't simply pass the buck to our kids?”

Start sequestering carbon or create funds to research effective ways to sequester carbon. For the US, it’d be as simple as giving the DOE R&D funds and a mandate.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#208

Post by fit2rule » Sun, May 26, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

jefflombardjr wrote: post #43

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…

Live stock farming is ~27% of methane production, where fossil fuels are ~33% [1]. Eating an eco friendly diet is great on the individual level, but we should not underscore the drastic need for decisive action on an institutional level. [1] https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-emissio...

We stop feeding cows corn, and feed them seaweed instead. Trouble is, how do we get the seaweed to the cows? Turn corn into biofuel for the purpose?

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#209

Post by ced » Sun, May 26, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

ced wrote: post #165

ourlordcaffeine wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions Most of these 100 companies are oil companies, and the emissions from oil they sold on to consumers is unfairly attributed to them. Exxon don't burn oil for fun, they sell it to people to power their cars. This statistic is incredibly misleading.

Are they seriously counting Joe's car's CO2 as Exxon's responsibility? Can I ask for a reference/quote on that?

lustysocietyorg's post is dead, but it bears repeating:

https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbo...

Quote:

Claim: 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions.

Quote:

Conclusion: Of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from human activity (excluding certain sources like agricultural methane) between 1988 and 2015, 71% originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions released when the fossil fuels they sold were subsequently used by their customers.

Re: Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels

#210

Post by village-idiot » Sun, May 26, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

52-6F-62 wrote: post #202

village-idiot wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methane release from cattle is largely a by-product of nitrogen fixing fertilizers putting natural methane eating bacteria in the soil into an inactive state. If we stopped using synthetic (and oil based!) fertilizers at least on where the cattle poop, a lot of that methane will get sequestered into the top soil too. Which also explains why the flatulence of 60-100m buffalo before the industrial era didn’t warm the p…

Interesting. I haven’t looked that deeply into the problem, but I’ll have to read about that. I imagine some locales might be worse for that problem than others, yeah? Do you have any info you can share?

https://aem.asm.org/content/72/2/1346