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

81–90 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#81

Post by reillyse »

Alupis wrote: post #69
reillyse wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of countries do this. It just takes leadership.

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". And they are right. Why should they do shit when the richest country in the world isn't interested in changing their behavior.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#82

Post by ch4s3 »

ohbtvz wrote: post #73
ch4s3 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a very good take. Business leaders are generally fine with reasonable regulations that are evenly applied and easy to comply with. The operations out there spewing methane are essentially free riding, and their competitors who don't do that probably want better enforcement. Obviously this isn't universally applicable to all conceivable regulations, but its true enough in this case.

I personally don't care in any way about what business leaders are comfortable with. Our planet is burning. They should be uncomfortable.

My point is that businesses aren't even necessarily against this kind of regulation. The reality is that controlling methane requires a lot of unsexy followthrough and monitoring, and international deal making. This is a political failure.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#83

Post by jakub_g »

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.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#84

Post by aeternum »

proee wrote: post #74
tanto wrote: post #41

> Together, the Turkmenistan sources release an estimated 111,000 pounds of methane gas per hour If this is happening all the time, then the number of global methane emissions due to human activity on this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions ) Wikipedia page can't be valid. Crazy how human negligence and greed might end humanity.

From some Google Searches... 111,000 pounds of methane, multipled by factor of 80x, equal around 388M tons of CO2. A car produces around 4.6 tons of C02 per year. So this makes the emissions equal to about 84M cars driving around for a year. Google says there are around 1.46 Billion cars in the world. So this amount of greenhouse gas is around a 5.7% increase in our overall car emissions. (edited based on feedback be…

The issue is that this methane is not being oxidized. Burning the methane as it is released is an easy solve. Yes this increases CO2 at the ratio your specify (~1ton Methane to 2.75 CO2) but that is still much better than releasing it as Methane gas.

Methane gas in the atmosphere causes 80x the greenhouse effect that CO2 causes.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#85

Post by 1024core »

ZainRiz wrote: post #60
possiblelion wrote: post #45

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?

Like offering to pay to fix the leaks in their gas pipeline? Prob way cheaper than invading the country

> Prob way cheaper than invading the country

But they have oil....

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#86

Post by guelo »

ljf wrote: post #79
proee wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From some Google Searches... 111,000 pounds of methane, multipled by factor of 80x, equal around 388M tons of CO2. A car produces around 4.6 tons of C02 per year. So this makes the emissions equal to about 84M cars driving around for a year. Google says there are around 1.46 Billion cars in the world. So this amount of greenhouse gas is around a 5.7% increase in our overall car emissions. (edited based on feedback be…

Quoting here but; Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO2 has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions.

Also, the extra warming from methane can trigger unrecoverable tipping points, such as melting ancient glaciers and permafrost, whose effects will last for thousands of years.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#87

Post by neves »

reillyse wrote: post #67
madrox wrote: post #52

Worth noting that EMIT wasn't funded for this purpose. It was greenlit to measure and track dust (arguably still for climate-related purposes, but still!). This is a relatively minor example of why funding space-based science is so important. We're still seeing "accidental benefits" of deploying technology there.

Cynical me thinks that if NASA tried to get funding for a project that could detect large scale methane plumes which might be used against the oil and gas industry they might just not be able to get that funding.

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

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#88

Post by throwawaylinux »

stetrain wrote: post #55
rootusrootus wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need it at the worldwide level, which is especially difficult.

Yes, but that shouldn't prevent us from implementing it where we can first.

If regulations make cleaner and more advanced industries less competitive, pushing production to cheaper places with less regulation and higher emissions intensity of production, then that could actually increase CO2 output.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#89

Post by guelo »

rootusrootus wrote: post #43
idiotsecant wrote: post #36

Another example of why we need the 'regulation' that is so demonized.

We need it at the worldwide level, which is especially difficult.

Instead of the geopolitically-driven western trade regime we have today we should be basing trade relations on environmental standards.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#90

Post by hackerlight »

Alupis wrote: post #62
stetrain wrote: post #55

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…

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 countries aren't?". If you do things first, you disarm that narrative that's going on in other countries, which makes it easier for their progressives to get change done locally.

Post reply on HN