Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA finds super-emitters of methane

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#241

Post by Rebelgecko »

ryanhuff wrote: post #27
mturmon wrote: post #24

Several questions ask to contextualize this measurement. Here's a highly-cited paper in Nature (including some of the researchers quoted in the OP) that describes how an earlier survey of California methane emissions went: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3 If I remember right, the state of CA asked for this survey. It was carried out by an instrument similar to that of the OP, but airborne, not on ISS…

My Orange County suburb recently mandated putting food waste into a separate can.

It's a statewide mandate (well, the separate can part isn't- some regions use the same cans for food waste and lawn clippings)

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#242

Post by Schroedingersat »

Alupis wrote: post #179
stetrain wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the root cause of California's energy issue because they are shutting down non-green energy production?

One could make a pretty darn strong case the root of California's energy issue is because they've refused to build anything except "green" energy production facilities, despite current-day needs. No new hydro-electric dams in my lifetime. No new nuclear reactors (that I'm aware of at least) in my lifetime. Just either status-quo, or gobbles of unproven renewable tech that has yet to actually live up to expectations (…

So california brought online 30GW of gas since 2000, and it's the 5GW net of renewables that's the problem?

Sounds like the issue is the fossil fuel lobby. Weird that delaying new renewables by a decade to build new nuclear or hydro aligns exactly with their interests.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#244

Post by xwdv »

reillyse wrote: post #72
xwdv wrote: post #65

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?

This concept is so strange. I'm not sure what country you are from, but I'm going to assume the US. Would you think it was OK if another country destroyed something in America because they thought it was damaging the environment. How about if they tried to force you to change your ways because of the environmental damage you were doing? Because guess what? The US is seriously over represented in pollution. Destroying…

So what do you propose, let super polluters keep burning and destroy the whole planet? I’d rather we just blow them away. Something has to give.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#245

Post by parineum »

Invictus0 wrote: post #226
naikrovek wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's adorable. Meanwhile, the entire article circle is melting and fermenting. yeah this guy is right. if we can’t fix it in a single swift stroke, it can’t be fixed. (i just gave myself a headache from rolling my eyes so hard.) think of it differently, at least for a few seconds. what is significant change if not lots of small changes measured cumulatively? lots of individual people wanting gas for their cars co…

It's part of a narrative to blame consumers for causing climate change, meanwhile industry pollutes far more. The pollution reduction per unit effort is much higher if you focus on heavy industry.

Guess who buys things from industry?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#246

Post by slater »

xwdv wrote: post #244
reillyse wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This concept is so strange. I'm not sure what country you are from, but I'm going to assume the US. Would you think it was OK if another country destroyed something in America because they thought it was damaging the environment. How about if they tried to force you to change your ways because of the environmental damage you were doing? Because guess what? The US is seriously over represented in pollution. Destroying…

So what do you propose, let super polluters keep burning and destroy the whole planet? I’d rather we just blow them away. Something has to give.

The US had 215 atmospheric nuke tests. Shall we blow that country away, too?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#247

Post by 29athrowaway »

throwaway821909 wrote: post #235
29athrowaway wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not talking about energy, we are talking about waste disposal. And not having money is not a excuse for burning trash. In part, because burning some types of trash (pretty much anything other than yard trimmings, including food) will make you and your community incredibly sick, causing you to spend more money in the end. It's already illegal to burn trash in almost every jurisdiction on earth. I am just callin…

It's normally much easier to buy e.g. a computer, a mattress, various household chemicals than to get rid of them properly. We need to tackle one or both sides of this equation, or people will just dump stuff in their local river if you censor the burning video. It's the old piracy argument again, loads of money was spent trying to take down pirate mp3 sites without results, then Spotify comes along. But maybe recycl…

A bad analogy for this case, because pirating mp3s doesn't give you, your family and your neighborhood cancer and doesn't generate fat soluble toxic chemicals that accumulate in wildlife, livestock and humans for decades.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#249

Post by _jvqe »

Invictus0 wrote: post #226
naikrovek wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's adorable. Meanwhile, the entire article circle is melting and fermenting. yeah this guy is right. if we can’t fix it in a single swift stroke, it can’t be fixed. (i just gave myself a headache from rolling my eyes so hard.) think of it differently, at least for a few seconds. what is significant change if not lots of small changes measured cumulatively? lots of individual people wanting gas for their cars co…

It's part of a narrative to blame consumers for causing climate change, meanwhile industry pollutes far more. The pollution reduction per unit effort is much higher if you focus on heavy industry.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tougher-rules-on-methane-leaks-...

Its a paywalled article, but you are correct that carbon credits and net-zero have excluded methane because of its wonderful smell :)

"Long-awaited" means exactly zero has been implemented. Perhaps "the new net-zero", similar to soda marketing is in order.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#250

Post by lob_it »

stuaxo wrote: post #243

COP27 is about to start, that would be a good time for countries to agree to do something about these starting this year.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63083634

The article indicated a 20% rise in cancer rates in populutions around these oil sites from 2015 to 2018.

We can only wonder how many decades this has been occuring in oil-rich countries with poor recordkeeping.

Post reply on HN