11–20 of 78 posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhWcFShBAFE
And this New Yorker article has a much more detailed explanation:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-climate-action/a-se...
I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring? My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amoun…
That’s exactly why it’s also worth targeting. Its short residence time means that addressing methane emissions could make a meaningful impact. It’s not zero sum - we should address the low hanging fruit of methane emissions while also decarbonizing.
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/through-president-bidens-b...
https://www.energy.gov/fecm/funding-notice-ira-mitigating-em...
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-rising-cost-of-the-oi...
(US centric, but the model transfers)
Because these are either spy sats or even weapons in space disguised as "methane detectors".
Which also seems to be the article’s lesson.
FWIW, it looks like Starlink alone is up to 5,942 satellites in orbit [0] these days
The current publicly available tools like https://methane.jpl.nasa.gov/ seem to focus on showing methane plumes. Which is good & something we are better positioned to do something about. But I wonder if these tools might help us see both impact of the already underway colossally fast climate change we are undergoing, which will only speed up all the faster as these trapped sources make their way out to the atmosphere.
I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring? My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amoun…
That's a misunderstanding. The methane stays in the atmosphere a few years until it reacts with oxygen to CO2. So first you have the multiple times worse effect of CH4 and then you're left with CO2, which is still a greenhouse gas. You're left with CO2 either way, even when you burn the methane. That's why it's so bad. And that's why actually when companies or politicians tell you about "clean" gas, it's very mislead…
Let's say a cow eats grass, produces methane, the methane gets converted into CO2, the grass grows back. No net increase in CO2.
If, on the other hand, the methane came from natural gas, you have permanently added carbon to the cycle.
I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring? My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amoun…
I think the idea is even in those 12 years, it's way more damaging than CO2 will be. Over 100 years, it is 28 times more damaging than C02, despite not being in the atmosphere for most of that time. Plus doesn't it just break down into CO2 anyway, meaning that methane does its direct damage, plus creates more CO2.
I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring? My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amoun…
That’s exactly why it’s also worth targeting. Its short residence time means that addressing methane emissions could make a meaningful impact. It’s not zero sum - we should address the low hanging fruit of methane emissions while also decarbonizing.
Putting aside the climate aspects and just concentrating on companies that are trying to identify methane leaks: If I have a device that can accurately see methane leaks, I am very surprised it's really more economical to put them on satellites than to operate them locally. Yes, I get that you can have one device in orbit that can do the job for multiple companies, but satellites are just fantastically expensive. Unl…
And while they are expensive, we're talking about low single-digit millions of dollars for a satellite which has a lifespan of 5+ years. Relatively inexpensive for the companies who would want to use them.