71–80 of 387 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way methane "exits" the atmosphere is by becoming CO2, so it's strictly worse.
Methane becoming CO2 means it also produces H2O + a lot of heat, correct? Enough heat to use it as energy source for example.
If things get really bad and these things are deemed bad for the planet, could a nation demand the facilities be shut down or else be destroyed by military strike?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm but if we make businesses do something that is not the most short-term profitable choice, then the shareholders may not be able to extract maximum value!
This isn't a very good take. Business leaders are generally fine with reasonable regulations that are evenly applied and easy to comply with. The operations out there spewing methane are essentially free riding, and their competitors who don't do that probably want better enforcement. Obviously this isn't universally applicable to all conceivable regulations, but its true enough in this case.
> Together, the Turkmenistan sources release an estimated 111,000 pounds of methane gas per hour If this is happening all the time, then the number of global methane emissions due to human activity on this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions ) Wikipedia page can't be valid. Crazy how human negligence and greed might end humanity.
111,000 pounds of methane, multipled by factor of 80x, equal around 388M tons of CO2.
A car produces around 4.6 tons of C02 per year. So this makes the emissions equal to about 84M cars driving around for a year. Google says there are around 1.46 Billion cars in the world.
So this amount of greenhouse gas is around a 5.7% increase in our overall car emissions.
(edited based on feedback below)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but that shouldn't prevent us from implementing it where we can first.
Not if all your efforts are wasted because other nations won't follow in-step or do not care. This isn't grade school were trying your hardest gets you an 'A' for the day... in reality trying your hardest and failing is still failure. The US could do all the magical things and net zero emissions next year and it won't matter one bit. That's just reality... without a globally concerted effort, it's all just waste. But…
1) Try to improve what we can and hope others follow. Outcomes are either a global improvement in emissions or significant adverse climate effects.
2) Don't do that. Outcome is significant adverse climate effects.
What's the argument for choosing 2)?
Okay we might be at an economic advantage for 20, maybe 50 years? But then what?
PS: I agree with your last statement. But I don't see how reducing excess methane emissions prevents us from pursuing those solutions as well. Nor would I categorize that as an emotional "feel-good" solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but that shouldn't prevent us from implementing it where we can first.
Not if all your efforts are wasted because other nations won't follow in-step or do not care. This isn't grade school were trying your hardest gets you an 'A' for the day... in reality trying your hardest and failing is still failure. The US could do all the magical things and net zero emissions next year and it won't matter one bit. That's just reality... without a globally concerted effort, it's all just waste. But…
It's really scary to me how common this kind of false dichotomous thinking has become. It's everywhere, in politics especially.
> Together, the Turkmenistan sources release an estimated 111,000 pounds of methane gas per hour If this is happening all the time, then the number of global methane emissions due to human activity on this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions ) Wikipedia page can't be valid. Crazy how human negligence and greed might end humanity.
From some Google Searches... 111,000 pounds of methane, multipled by factor of 80x, equal around 388M tons of CO2. A car produces around 4.6 tons of C02 per year. So this makes the emissions equal to about 84M cars driving around for a year. Google says there are around 1.46 Billion cars in the world. So this amount of greenhouse gas is around a 5.7% increase in our overall car emissions. (edited based on feedback be…
Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO2 has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions.
If things get really bad and these things are deemed bad for the planet, could a nation demand the facilities be shut down or else be destroyed by military strike?