101–110 of 196 posts
So what can be done about landfills? Burying stuff seems expensive/energy intensive.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant...
Can someone who knows better tell me if that's good science or not?
For example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellit...
Obviously not a small problem to solve. I think if the gov started identifying and fining these emitters, they would invest more into these types of solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
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.
Of course all water use (like pollution) is driven by consumer demand, but the point is a lot of effort seems to be spent on silly things that have little impact when there are much easier targets.
Caveat: the water situation is a lot more complex than I laid it out here.
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.
I interned for a landfill gas capture company a long time ago. Apparently it’s quite tough to make payback on the investment. If value is applied to the degradation and GHG abatement, some groups might find it worthwhile.
The following says that methane is not an important greenhouse gas: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant... Can someone who knows better tell me if that's good science or not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 0.2% of the sites account for 46% of emissions. Sounds like "a handful" to me. In as much as a metaphorical measurement can be accurate..
I think the issue is with using "vast majority" to mean "46%". Extremely disproportionate, but not a vast majority.
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.
Some states(US) cap landfills with large sheets of plastic (the new ones have plastic on the bottom, making a "giant bag") and punch holes for venting methane and other exhaust gasses. They vent because the gas is flammable and having it build up under a sheet of plastic is risky. Landfills catch on fire frequently. [2]
Some sites collect the gas and burn it, but it isn't common.
You can see the venting tubes on this photo of liner repair after lightning strike...[1]
[1]https://comanco.com/blog/comanco-makes-liner-repairs-on-clos...
[2]http://www.mowastecoalition.org/resources/Documents/2018%20c...