Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be interested in a quantitative analysis here. Methane is much worse, but sunlight has broken most of it down after a decade or so. CO2 is comparatively forever. Presumably there's a point where the lines cross and leaking green methane is still a win. I guess it just comes down to where those lines cross and whether we deem that an acceptable goal.
Sunlight breaks methane down into CO2, so I don’t think there’s much of a win there.
If we all switched to still-leaky synthetic methane today, things would continue getting worse only until the atmospheric breakdown rate equalled the leak rate. That's still a decade of things getting worse, but it's possible that the alternatives are even more problematic.
I'm not saying it's the right or wrong path, I haven't done that analysis, I'm just saying that approaches to it could use a bit more pragmatism.