271–280 of 387 posts
All of the emissions reductions in the US aren’t going to do anything if China keeps emitting at pace. We should not be doing anything unilaterally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but then you have a different problem: you incentive people to generate more trash. There must be a balance.
Never have I felt “incentivized” to produce trash. Most of my trash is because the government doesn’t curb overpackaging of products.
Have they published a global map we can look at?
They are still in the process of mapping: https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/mission/destination/ I posted the original NASA article a few days ago, which has better info than this Smithsonian article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349999
The surface properties are the main intermediate product on the way to the climate-related overall goal (https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/science/objectives/). Namely, does the dust lofted from these deserts heat or cool the Earth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like Marathon Oil is the company
True story. I have worked oil and gas for a while and am familiar with this area. It can easily be a well not properly P&A'd (plugged and abandoned) - quite common down there. It is most likely a Marathon well (HARROUN COM #002), or it could be Eastland Oil (HARROUN A #007). If you want to get a better idea for yourself, you can check the EMNRD - https://ocd-hub-nm-emnrd.hub.arcgis.com/
TIL about CBG: Cleaner Burning Gasoline
From https://twitter.com/westurner/status/1564443689623195650 :
> In September 2021 we covered a new "green gasoline" concept from @NaceroCo [in Penwell, TX] that involves constructing gasoline hydrocarbons by assembling smaller #methane molecules from natural gas
From https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Opi... :
> The Inflation Reduction Act imposes a fee of [$900/ton] of methane starting in 2024 — this is roughly twice the current record-high price of natural gas and five times the average price of natural gas in 2020.
> These high fees present a strong incentive
... "Argonne invents reusable [polyurethane] sponge that soaks up oil, could revolutionize oil spill and diesel cleanup" (2017) https://www.anl.gov/article/argonne-invents-reusable-sponge-...
FWIU, heat engines are useful with all thermal gradients: pipes, engines, probably solar panels and attics; "MIT’s new heat engine beats a steam turbine in efficiency" (2022) https://www.freethink.com/environment/heat-engine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I sympathize with the sentiment, that creating some kind of censorship dystopia will magically solve the problem, the idea has no traction when most of the people doing so make less than $1 a day somewhere in a remote corner of the world. This is the problem I have with climate activism. The best way to reduce pollution is to raise the standard of living for people around the world. People who are wealthy can a…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general CO2 is a far less potent greenhouse gas than CH4, largely because there is already a permanent low level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In a few decades the methane will oxidize to CO2, but in the meantime it’s like 40 times more potent. Better to burn it. (Not sure if CH4 is inherently stronger than CO2 because of more possible quantum states, but I suspect atmospheric abundance is the main factor (…
My layperson understanding was that the more atoms/bonds a molecule has, the less transparent it was to IR. Diatomic molucules like oxygen and nitrogen were pretty much transparent, molecules like CO2 and H2O were in the middle, and bigger ones like CH4 were less so.
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…
Oh, really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_dung_fuel https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/climate/sweden-garbage-us...
It's a completely different process than simply just burning trash in a barrel.
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?
Neal Stephenson's latest novel sort of explores this idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would happen if this information was public?
If the information was public, after remedying all of the methane leaks, we would still maintain above normal temperatures for a decade or two, then we would normalize temperatures around 2050, if all of the leaks were capped by tomorrow. Due to the toxic nature, I still wouldn't recommend sunscreen without knowing exactly what is in it.
What? Are you a bot?