NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’ • Hacker News Board

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#81

Post by happimess » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

jobseeker990 wrote: post #34

azernik wrote: post #2

The most interesting sentence isn't the headline, but rather: > Landfills accounted for 41% of the source emissions it identified, manure management 26% and oil and gas operations 26%. i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition.

Compost IS natural decomposition, my dude.

True, but it's an aerobic decomposition that produces CO2. Landfills tend to create anaerobic environments, where decomposition produces methane. Both are greenhouse gases, yes, but methane is the more potent of the two.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#82

Post by macjohnmcc » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

archgoon wrote: post #66

bravo22 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it can be reduced, my point was that it is directly tied to consumer demand and human activity. It will still be a none-zero number after reduction. No business is out there emitting methane for shits and giggles. As I said elsewhere in this post, you can cut emission but population growth offsets all the benefits. You cannot address climate change without drastic long term reduction in human activity/po…

To be fair; in cattle at least, "shits and giggles" is not an entirely inaccurate description of methane production.

The laughing cows are the worst. But they make a pretty decent cheese.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#83

Post by jws » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #54

danielfoster wrote: post #42

As an individual I'm happy to make sacrifices for the greater good, and this is an example of why we should not accept the narrative that consumers bear the brunt of reducing emissions. Maybe California should do a few more of these flights before finding something else to ban?

I only recently learned the history of "anti-littering" marketing campaigns [0], conceived to push responsibility for waste onto consumers rather than producers, who were switching from metals and glass to much cheaper (but no longer reusable) plastics. Whatever individuals can do to reduce inefficiency and carbon footprint is surely a good thing; but it's no replacement for systems thinking, and applying incentives…

There is a narrative developing about the anti-littering marketing campaigns which I think tries to paint it as a cynical ploy by businesses.

Just to frame things as someone alive at the time in one part of America… single serving glass bottles were not returned to the store, they had no deposit. They were thrown away. Beer cans had no deposit. They were thrown away. (Steel soda cans weren't a thing, they stayed in bottles until aluminum came around) Fast-food cups were waxed paper. Straws were paper. The lids were plastic.

Companies were up front about controlling littering, using their brand loyalty to achieve it. McDonalds even had a "we don't like to see our name thrown around like this" campaign showing a clearly branded paper bag in a ditch.

Most roadside litter was steel beer cans, glass bottles (many broken), paper wrappers and bags. Any picnic area would have beer can pull tabs all over the place. It was actually an effort to retrain people to put the tab into the can so it eventually got thrown away instead of just tossing it where the barefoot children played. Coors introduced a special beer top which had a big hole and a little hole to jab your fingers through so there wouldn't be a beer tab to deal with! Eventually the aluminum lid with no loose parts was developed, but that was a decade after the anti littering campaigns.

It's taken half a century, but now most people don't chuck garbage out their car windows. Some people do. Some areas of the country are much worse than others. If you think littering isn't a thing, then it probably isn't where you live. But, there are areas where the roadside ditches are still full of fresh litter.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#84

Post by sergiosgc » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 5:52 PM UTC

bravo22 wrote: post #61

ip26 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not all landfills, it's a small collection of landfills. And if they aren't fixed, even if everybody went zero waste today, those landfills would still be emitting large amounts of methane. Proper landfill design & operation ensures the landfill is aerated, which keeps decomposition primarily aerobic which produces little methane. A poorly designed or operated landfill with little aeration will switch to aerobic…

I agree that it can be reduced, my point was that it is directly tied to consumer demand and human activity. It will still be a none-zero number after reduction. No business is out there emitting methane for shits and giggles. As I said elsewhere in this post, you can cut emission but population growth offsets all the benefits. You cannot address climate change without drastic long term reduction in human activity/po…

> You cannot address climate change without drastic long term reduction in human activity/population.

Of course you can. You must change activities to be carbon neutral, but you can maintain the same level of comfort you have today. More than "can maintain", you "must".

If you rely on sacrifice from the whole planetary population in order to tackle climate change, we are doomed. It will never happen, as it goes against the competitive nature of humans.

The correct path is forward: innovate, so that carbon neutral forms of energy and materials are better than carbon-emitting versions. Energy is an almost solved problem, using this vector. Let's attack materials now.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#85

Post by lodi » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 5:55 PM UTC

bravo22 wrote: post #58

schnable wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but perhaps the emissions can be mitigated in a targeted way beyond just reducing demand.

Not really possible. Ultimately it is human demand that is driving climate change. Even if you have a magical technology that cuts all emissions today by 25% -- which would be truly magic -- you only need a 25% growth* in population to offset that and put us back to square one. At the current rate of 1.2% that's only ~18 years.

(Just because this is hn...)

You'd need a 33% growth in population to offset a 25% reduction in pollution, 100% growth to offset a 50% reduction, and so on.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#86

Post by tstrimple » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

bravo22 wrote: post #61

ip26 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not all landfills, it's a small collection of landfills. And if they aren't fixed, even if everybody went zero waste today, those landfills would still be emitting large amounts of methane. Proper landfill design & operation ensures the landfill is aerated, which keeps decomposition primarily aerobic which produces little methane. A poorly designed or operated landfill with little aeration will switch to aerobic…

I agree that it can be reduced, my point was that it is directly tied to consumer demand and human activity. It will still be a none-zero number after reduction. No business is out there emitting methane for shits and giggles. As I said elsewhere in this post, you can cut emission but population growth offsets all the benefits. You cannot address climate change without drastic long term reduction in human activity/po…

Consumption is even further removed from externalities than the companies which do this damage in the first place. It always strikes me as odd when consumers are blamed for the damage companies do when producing their goods. It's not like it says on the packaging "During the production of this product, XXX chemicals were released into your rivers" for consumers to make an informed choice in this matter. Furthermore, companies actively try to hide and cover up the damage that they do. Oil companies have known about the impacts of their products on global warming since the 70's and have waged a HUGE disinformation campaign to say otherwise. Now we are in a situation where half the country doesn't believe in global warming, but it's the consumers fault?

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#87

Post by ClumsyPilot » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

bravo22 wrote: post #45

danielfoster wrote: post #42

As an individual I'm happy to make sacrifices for the greater good, and this is an example of why we should not accept the narrative that consumers bear the brunt of reducing emissions. Maybe California should do a few more of these flights before finding something else to ban?

Per the article, most of the sites were landfills, dairy farms, and natural gas facilities. All of those are directly controlled by consumer demand.

This is demonstrably false, please stop perpetuating it. CO2 emissions are 90% down to tragedy of the commons.

I can have the exactly same lifestyle in Saudi, in USA and in France, yet per capita emissions in France are 3 times lower than those in USA, and 5 times lower than in Saudi.

People in Saudi do not have 5 times better lives. In fact a huge chunk of the population is an underclass, some work as slaves on construction sites.

Competent management and regulation matters, a lot.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#88

Post by ClumsyPilot » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 6:02 PM UTC

billsmithaustin wrote: post #69

bravo22 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per the article, most of the sites were landfills, dairy farms, and natural gas facilities. All of those are directly controlled by consumer demand.

I think it would be more precise to say they are influenced by consumer demand. Consumers consume from landfills, dairy farms, and natural gas facilities, but they do not control them. It is true that as a consumer, I can try to regulate my demand to reflect how I feel about those facilities' emissions. At the time time, saying that consumers control those facilities seems to imply that the owners and operators bear…

I do hope they are consuming from landfills, otherwise you might have more pressing issues ^ ^

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#89

Post by ZeroGravitas » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #87

bravo22 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per the article, most of the sites were landfills, dairy farms, and natural gas facilities. All of those are directly controlled by consumer demand.

This is demonstrably false, please stop perpetuating it. CO2 emissions are 90% down to tragedy of the commons. I can have the exactly same lifestyle in Saudi, in USA and in France, yet per capita emissions in France are 3 times lower than those in USA, and 5 times lower than in Saudi. People in Saudi do not have 5 times better lives. In fact a huge chunk of the population is an underclass, some work as slaves on cons…

You can see similar factors of difference in carbon intensity between US States. Generally the ones I'd want to live in are doing much better.

In Australia, when they briefly brought in a carbon tax, a dairy that complained before it was introduced, started capturing their methane and using it for power and installed solar. They ended up thinking it was a good thing just as it was repealed.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#90

Post by hanniabu » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

punnerud wrote: post #78

In Norway we place plastic over the (food) landfill, gather the methane and use it for electricity production. When there is no more methane the same landfill is used as soil for food production.

That's a great idea, but also requires an organized garbage collection system where items are separated at the source (consumer). Unfortunately the US doesn't have such a system in place, which is partially a social issue.