101–110 of 387 posts
How could a 2 mile long methane plume in New Mexico have been undetected for any significant amount of time? From what I understand basic environmental monitoring is done in 2022 around all major industrial facilities in the U.S.
This wasn't a surprise. Laws had been previously passed specifically to allow this to continue.
Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They’ve proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution accountability that might be possible. But does the political will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political donors that way? Our country as one of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cynical me is always impressed in how much funding goes to find emitters outside the develop world: > "...emit methane at high rates span central Asia, the Middle East and the southwestern United States. By finding these sites from space, the satellite is bringing an important perspective to climate accountability," USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money spent in emergency Covid vaccines
> USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money spent in emergency Covid vaccines Have we not recently been reminded that the true cost of reducing domestic energy production is much higher than the mere bottom line estimate of shuttering the production facilities? Germany and France might like a word. With Ukraine slowly shaking their heads in the background.
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. Climate change due to CO2/etc. emissions
2. Fossil fuel (oil/gas/coal) peak
Even if we do not care about climate change, as fossil fuel addicts, any decline of fossil fuel production would be catastrophic for the world wide economy.
So, in this race to avoid fossil fuel, the sooner you are out of it, the more resilient you will be when pumping oil/gas/coal would be too expensive.
Capturing all those methane gas, if not for the climate, but for usage is good for the national security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds great and all, but there is no evidence thus far to indicate any of the nations that actually matter for climate emissions care one bit about your nation's leadership.
I'm not sure what nation you are referring to. I was also not proposing my nation was the leader so I'm confused. I would say the the US is one of the largest polluters on the planet and leadership in the US would change world wide pollution levels. Leadership is just that, leading. It's very easy for other countries to just point at the US and say "they don't practice what they preach, why should we do anything". An…
You might be surprised if you look into this a bit. On a Per Capita basis, the US is barely in the top 10.
Regardless, developing nations are not burning coal and petroleum because they hate the environment... they need cheap energy production - which is currently a failure of the green energy movement (ie. there is nothing cheap about it, it's a luxury at the moment).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nirvana fallacy. Your efforts aren't wasted if others don't follow suit. A partial solution is better than no solution. At the least you're buying the world a few extra years to figure it out. Also, being the leader makes it easier for other countries to follow suit. Every country has a large bloc of cynical reactionaries within their borders pointing their fingers and saying "why would we do anything if other countr…
The "problem" countries are not going to start setting up wind farms just because the US can do it. These countries are burning coal for a reason... it's exceedingly cheap. Make something else exceedingly cheap and they will use it. Anything else is just a distraction and made to make you feel good at night while not accomplishing anything significant.
Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason. It's because of investment in these technologies by richer countries. The richer countries pave the way by making the technology so cheap that it's irresistible and a better deal to poor countries. The way you make it cheap is by funding the transition yourself. The cost decreases naturally follow as part of R&D.
Thirdly, rich countries should subsidize the energy transition of poor countries. They've emitted much more than poor countries per capita since the Industrial Revolution, so a de-facto retroactive carbon tax to fund poor countries' transition on an expedited timeline is only fair.
So - looking at this it seems Turkmenistan [a repressive, North Korea style dictatorship] is destroying our climate system at an order of magnitude faster than anyone else. I'm well aware of the legacy that Iraq/Afghanistan have left in terms of international interventions into other countries; but if it is our common future on the balance, shouldn't we do something? Something more than just politely asking to stop?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cynical me is always impressed in how much funding goes to find emitters outside the develop world: > "...emit methane at high rates span central Asia, the Middle East and the southwestern United States. By finding these sites from space, the satellite is bringing an important perspective to climate accountability," USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money spent in emergency Covid vaccines
> USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money spent in emergency Covid vaccines Have we not recently been reminded that the true cost of reducing domestic energy production is much higher than the mere bottom line estimate of shuttering the production facilities? Germany and France might like a word. With Ukraine slowly shaking their heads in the background.
Since Turkmenistan was mentioned, mandatory link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater > One of the more popular theories is that Soviet geologists intentionally set it on fire in 1971 to prevent the spread of methane gas, and it is thought to have been burning continuously ever since.
Since Turkmenistan was mentioned, mandatory link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater > One of the more popular theories is that Soviet geologists intentionally set it on fire in 1971 to prevent the spread of methane gas, and it is thought to have been burning continuously ever since.
I'm not quite sure, does burning it make it less harmful?