Scientists Identify Another Source of Dangerous Greenhouse Gases: Reservoirs (popsci.com) 159
A team of researchers from Canada, Holland, China, the U.S. and Brazil "found that greenhouse gas emissions from man-made reservoirs were likely equal to the equivalent of one gigaton of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere every year...a little less than one-sixth of the United State's greenhouse gas emissions." An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes Popular Science:
A reservoir is usually created by damming a river, overflowing the banks and flooding the surrounding area, creating a man-made lake...the perfect conditions for microbes to generate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane (a gas that is about 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide)... "When reservoirs are first flooded there's organic matter in the soil and vegetation that can be converted by microbes into methane and carbon dioxide," John Harrison, a co-author of the paper, tells Popular Science.
"Also, reservoirs because they are in line in rivers, they receive a lot of organic matter and organic sediment from upstream that can fuel the production of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide." Harrison says that reservoirs also tend to occur in areas where fertilizers are used on the surrounding land. Runoff from those fertilizers into bodies of water can cause algal blooms that can also produce more methane and carbon dioxide.
If the world's reservoirs were a country, they'd be #8 on a list of polluters -- right behind Brazil, China, the EU and the U.S.
"Also, reservoirs because they are in line in rivers, they receive a lot of organic matter and organic sediment from upstream that can fuel the production of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide." Harrison says that reservoirs also tend to occur in areas where fertilizers are used on the surrounding land. Runoff from those fertilizers into bodies of water can cause algal blooms that can also produce more methane and carbon dioxide.
If the world's reservoirs were a country, they'd be #8 on a list of polluters -- right behind Brazil, China, the EU and the U.S.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Is the implication that fresh water is bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't really matter. Ultimately the problem is people. The only way to save the planet is to get rid of all the people. People dam rivers, raise cows, run industry and just generally destroy the environment. I guess the planet is doomed. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Re: (Score:1)
That's about the long and short of it. People still like to bury their heads in the sand about these matters. They like to think that if Musk (and it MUST be Musk) builds a 35k EV and some candidates of choice take office that everything will work out and the future will arrive and in another decade we'll be living the good life that some 1950s sci-fi b-films made it out to be. They don't want to hear that they need to stop eating meat (Yes, even you "free range" fuckers. Even free range is unsustainable fo
Re: (Score:1)
All the while the same turds have to have their smart-phones, starbucks Latte's, electric cars and toilet paper, etc.
Re: Is the implication that fresh water is bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given any problem, Greens only support solutions that don't exist yet. As soon as we started building the windfields and solar farms they told us they wanted, objections began to appear.
Example: Currently, we hear Green support for vat-grown meat as a resource-efficient and cruelty-free substitute for range cattle. You know and I know that the moment vat meat goes on the market, it will be condemned as "nutritional plastic."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't we have "progressives" who are in favor of, you know, progress? We had them in Roosevelt's day, so why not now?
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we have "progressives" who are in favor of, you know, progress? We had them in Roosevelt's day, so why not now?
For the same reasons we cannot have "liberals" who are in favor of, you know, liberty.
Re: (Score:3)
how much land needs to be cleared to produce the feed that it takes to produce meat
A lot less than needs to be cleared to grow vegetable matter edible by humans. And a lot less water too. Grazing livestock are perfectly happy eating grasses that people can't consume. And as the climate warms up, there are going to be a lot more grasslands available for grazing. Think northern Canada and Siberia.
Re: (Score:2)
They are happy to walk around outside in a field and eat grass
Not if the BLM has anything to say about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Chicken and pork are fairly sustainable (when measuring both water and co2 per gram protein), both in line with efficient vegetables.
Red meat is the real environmental disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
i guess. the only real answer here is "tough shit". human beings have been pretty good at figuring out how to survive in a very wide array of environments. whatever harm we're doing to the environment, we'll figure out a way to get through, just like other forms of life on the planet will adapt as well.
cajoling anyone, anywhere, at anytime to reduce consumption (aka standard of living) is a non-starter. it's a pipe dream that green-leaning lefties try to impose on the rest of us. The right answer is to in
Re: (Score:1)
The only way to save the planet is to get rid of all the people.
Hold on, we're working on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever seen a beaver dam? Then take a look at Hoover Dam.
Re: (Score:2)
Like he said. Start with yourself.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
FFS the planet is NOT going to die, there's nothing to 'save' it from. Evidence abounds proving there's been *huge* climate changes in the past prior to mankind doing jack shit like farming, storing water or cooking our meals the Earth has continued to live on and support life and will continue to do so despite a single degree shift in global temperatures. Animals, insects and plants will adjust and continue on like they have through greater changes the last several *Billion* years.
You need to be reminded t
Re: (Score:1)
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
The truth is seldom appreciated and I am not surprised to be modded down for telling it.
Re: (Score:2)
I can make the case that 7 billion is too many people. Maintaining 7 billion people at the standard of living most civilized countries are accustomed to is an enormous drain on the planet's resources. And that population is continuing to climb. There are over 1 billion vehicles in use by humans on this planet. A billion cars, trucks and buses. Think about all the energy produced to house 7 billion people. I know in a lot of third world countries they use a fraction of what places like Europe and the U
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, re-read your post and apologize for being environmentally conscious with the excess of non environmentally friendly things you posses. If you believe people are part of the problem, then before you pontificate you should of already been part of the solution. Which you self posted that you are not.
I'm hoping you can see why some of us look at you and just want to slap you in the back of the head to reboot your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
My giving up all I own and living in the forest like an animal will do as much good as spitting in the ocean to fill it up. I'm 1 out of over 7 billion and I'm just as human as all the others. I use LED lighting and have a high efficiency heat pump and do a lot of other things to limit my output but really I do all that more to save money than out of any though it actually matters much. If you live a modern lifestyle with an apartment or house that comes with all the amenities that modern life has then y
Re: (Score:1)
A truth you can't live up to?
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the real world. I think you live in a fantasy where someone can wave a magic wand and everything will suddenly be okay.
Re: (Score:1)
Then don't pontificate about it, because you don't have a right to.
And for what it's worth, I'm part of the crowd that's just going to wait for when the glaciers start growing again and the rhetoric goes back to what it was in the early 70's.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately my rights remain regardless of your opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Entertaining is it?
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but being shamed for being a pontificating idiot is, well, what you feel.
There's a word to describe you.
Hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FFS the planet is NOT going to die, there's nothing to 'save' it from. Evidence abounds proving there's been *huge* climate changes in the past prior to mankind doing jack shit like farming, storing water or cooking our meals the Earth has continued to live on and support life and will continue to do so despite a single degree shift in global temperatures. Animals, insects and plants will adjust and continue on like they have through greater changes the last several *Billion* years.
You need to be reminded that we are also indigenous to the planet and have every right to live on it just like every creature you mentioned.
If you feel like mankind must be removed from the planet then please prove the conviction of your position by starting with yourself.
A very good example of someone intelligent saying nothing untrue but coming to the wrong conclusions. Yes, there certainly have been giant shifts in climate in this planet without any human involvement whatsoever. This in no way precludes humanity's ability to cause a catastrophe. That's like saying your grass lawn only gets wet when it rains, and it can never be made wet any other way (be it intentionally or accidentally). Of course the earth will in all most likelihood continue supporting life in the
Re: (Score:1)
The only way to save the planet is to get rid of all the people.
Do not worry, the planet is doing just fine, we are only destroying ourselves, and once that is completed the planet will continue doing just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Not ALL of them. Just the first 3 to 5 billion you come across.
Re: (Score:2)
Planet don't care. It's been happily spinning along for four thousand, five hundred and ninety-seven million years before the human race came along, and will be here for at least another four thousand million years after we are gone to join the dodo, the woolly mammoth, homo habilis, Australopithecus, the dinosaurs, the Arthropleura, the Cameroceras and the trilobite.
The manner of our passing, or, indeed if the genus Homo lasts as long as, say Dinosauria, is a far more interesting question [deviantart.net].
Environmentalists Are Like Ex-Wives (Score:4, Insightful)
Not matter what alternative you offer them, they will find a problem with it and reject it.
Re:Is the implication that fresh water is bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they are making the issue about fresh soil providing nutrients for microbes at a higher rate due to submersion induced mobility of both the microbes and the nutrients. The thing is, if you have real soil (i.e. dirt+biomass+microbes±other_critters) then that process was happening, albeit at a reduced rate. It's called composting and that has been happening since the first green thing died. And microbes would have gotten around to all the available nutrients at some point. As to rivers fueling the process, I would be very concerned about the fertilizer load carried down stream, but the normal "payload" of biomass was going to break down somewhere in any case. If the rivers biomass were to travel to the sea uninterrupted, I would expect different critters to be waiting to snack the stuff back into farts. Have to add one more sentence because I don't want to end a post with the word farts.
OK, trying again this time we end with egg salad...
Re:Is the implication that fresh water is bad? (Score:5, Informative)
...then that process was happening, albeit at a reduced rate. It's called composting...
Composting is an aerobic process which does not release methane.
Rotting (under water), which is the issue here, happens anaerobically and releases methane.
Re: (Score:1)
Someone better get rid of the fucking ocean then. That's the biggest body of water right there. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh and Drain the lakes too.
Re: (Score:1)
There are very few trees at the bottom of the ocean.
The problem is not plants underwater. The problem is lots of land-plants suddenly getting submerged and dying + rotting.
Come on people. Are you really all this stupid?
Otoh, I read about this problem some 20 years ago, so I don't understand why it's a new idea all of a sudden.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
2nd: With 'carbon neutral', I think people do mean: CO2 neutral.
3rd: Methane is a gass which contains carbon. So, if 'carbon neutral' means 'CO2 neutral' then no, anaerobic digestion is not 'carbon neutral' because part of the carbon is going into making methane.
Re: (Score:2)
Because this runoff would go to the oceans. Would that somehow be better? How?
Some of it will be released immediately by same processes as in reservoirs, but a good part will be sequestered, either semi-permanently or at least on the order of 100 years. On the other hand, in shallow water there is nowhere for the carbon to go but up.
Re: (Score:3)
The implications is the writer hasn't grasped the difference between releasing fossil carbon and concentrating emissions of recently fixed carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
POPSCI tends to be all about propaganda science, rather than good science (they use the science stories to sell corporate propaganda, advertising and right wing politics, definitely a site to be avoided). The reservoirs all allow the continuous irrigation of carbon dioxide absorbing plants in people's gardens, so availability of water for irrigation and plant growth, is far greater than the initial and fairly short lived high methane production, especially consider the claims about microscopic organisms th
Re: (Score:1)
Submerging plants in drinking water reservoirs is doubleplusbad. Not because of the carbon emissions, but because the rotting plants will give the water a bad taste for fifty years or so.
When the state of Massachusetts built the Quabbin reservoir in the 1930's, they did their level best to take out all of the wood and plants that would rot; clearcutting the forests, relocating, demolishing and carting, or burning farm buildings in place. Only the stone foundations remained. They even removed the railro
A very small effect (Score:5, Interesting)
The headline and summary makes it sound like it is a large effect. It's not.
The estimate was 25% too low, and
"All told, reservoirs used for everything from power to flood control to irrigation account for roughly 1.3 percent of our global carbon footprint, much higher than previous estimates."
Wow. We're talking about a 1.3 percent contribution, and the original estimate was off by 25%.
So, the original estimate undercounted greenhouse emissions by a little under half a percent.
Some other sources:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/whoops-dams-and-reservoirs-release-tons-greenhouse-gases-180960645/?no-ist
http://gizmodo.com/scientists-just-discovered-a-major-new-source-of-carbon-1787222994
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You just summarized the entire Climate Change / Global Warming hysteria debacle.
EU as a country (Score:1)
Let's not get ahead of ourselves please; the EU is not a country.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, there seem to be three countries missing from the list. And why was the US put last in that list? It's #2. The list, in case anyone's wondering, is China, US, EU, India, Russia, Japan, Brazil (and then Indonesia, Mexico, Iran), in that order.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, probably because the list of Brazil, China, EU, and US is alphabetized.
Re: (Score:2)
To hydro or not to hydro (Score:5, Funny)
To hydro, or not to hydro--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler on the earth to suffer
The slings and varied emissions of outrageous power generation
Or to take arms against a sea of microbes
And by opposing end them.
Too late, we already put hydro in the good places (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not nearly as poetic as you, but:
> To hydro, or not to hydro--that is the question
That question was answered in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. We did put hydroelectric dams in most of the places where geography makes it attractive to do so.
There's a lot to be said good about hydro-electric, and some bad. Like nuclear, it provides steady, reliable, clean energy, and like nuclear a worst-case accident could be really bad. The collapse of the Banqiao hydroelectric dam killed about a quarter million people, for example.
Differences between hydro and nuclear include:
Political feasibility: until recently, it was fashionable in environmental circles to bash nuclear and promote hydro. That's changing.
Scalablity/growth: As mentioned, most of the good hydro spots are already in use. New nuclear plants can be built in many places.
Safety record: While both could theoretically cause many causalties in worst-case scenario, hydro actually does have such accidents occassionally, and a million people have actually been affected. Nuclear has had three pretty scary close calls, but nothing has actually happened like Banqaio etc have for hydro.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
wors't -case scenario
What kind of scenario would this be, exactly?
Sausages?
--
BMO
Chernobyl 60 people. Could be worse (Score:2)
Certainly Chernobyl is the worst nuclear accident that has ever happened.
About 60 people died due to exposure after Chernobyl. Compare 300 for a plane crash. It's estimated that due to increased cancer risk another 4,000 might eventually die sooner than they otherwise would have. I don't think that's the worst-case scenario that scares some people. I think they are worried about something that has never happened, but theoretically could with older reactor designs.
Re: (Score:2)
Who was behind this? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
"For one, when reservoirs are first flooded there’s organic matter in the soil and vegetation that can be converted by microbes into methane and carbon dioxide. Also, reservoirs because they are in line in rivers, they receive a lot of organic matter and organic sediment from upstream that can fuel the production of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide."
Okay... these are not going to be an issue in a un-dammed river (or natural lake)?
Harrison says that reservoirs also tend to occur in areas where fertilizers are used on the surrounding land. Runoff from those fertilizers into bodies of water can cause algal blooms that can also produce more methane and carbon dioxide.
A level of being redundant... Okay... these are not going to be an issue in a un-dammed river? And ... they are going to blame reservoirs for non-associated (man caused) pollution?
Someone is very anti-reservoirs (read pro coal/gas)
Re: Who was behind this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay... these are not going to be an issue in a un-dammed river (or natural lake)?
Rivers are very different than reservoirs when it comes to hydraulically shaped biological activity, so yes. Just check out any number of effects of human infrastructure on rivers like the Nile, the Tigris and Euphrates, the Yellow, the Thames, the Mississippi, etc.
these are not going to be an issue in a un-dammed river? And ... they are going to blame reservoirs for non-associated (man caused) pollution?
Blame? Try recognizing the impact of other actions that in turn contribute to a local effect.
But yes, flow to the sea is also an issue. See marine dead zones for more.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... these are not going to be an issue in a un-dammed river (or natural lake)?
Clear Lake [wikipedia.org], California's largest and most inaccurately named naturally-formed lake, grew to its current size because a massive landslide closed off its egress. In that case, a natural lake will have had the same problem, yes. However, it is 480,000 years old. It now has other problems, entirely man-made ones like mercury contamination due to mining.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not pro coal/gas but rather militant luddite. Reservoirs and hydro power are a great way to store energy. If you are hell bent on using solar and wind at the expense of all other forms of energy, you have to find a way to store it so that it's available when you need it. Using the excess energy to pump water up into a reservoir is a great way to do this. The fact that there are people who want to bork this only goes to show that those people would be happier living 200 years ago. Ironically, these peop
Re: (Score:1)
Regardless of whether or not reservoirs contribute significant greenhouse gasses, we humans have a responsibility to devote fully adequate resources to mitigate threatening issues of any kind.
And it starts with GOOD leadership and national policies. Like, for example, force NATO members to pay their fair share so we can reduce our military budget so we can channel more resources (i.e. money,
The carbon cycle (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK co2 isn't bad in itself. Without co2 we'd have much more serious problems than we have now.
The point is that the co2 equilibrium is disturbed by the fact that man dig or pumps up fossil fuels that have been stored for millions of years thereby adding co2 to the atmosphere.
Burning wood, rotting vegetation, farting animals and bubbling reservoirs are part of the co2 balance already so are not the cause of the current problem.
(This is how I understand it which - admittedly - isn't saying much)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. In fact, CO2 just crossed the 400/ppm threshold, meaning we're all DOOMED! except for the fact that CO2 concentration was higher than that in the Jurassic and Triassic Periods at about 2000/ppm and has been as high as 5000/ppm. The Jurassic and Triassic was the Age of the Dinosaurs and had features such as bracken ferns as tall as trees because, you know, plants like CO2, so vegans should be happy.
Even during several ice ages the CO2 content was higher than it is now BECAUSE CO2 isn't the real issu
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously it's a matter of perspective, but I think you'd have to go to great lengths to consider CO2 not bad in itself. Look at any random planet that has a a lot of CO2 in its atmosphere. Venus comes to mind. It rains lead over there. Only very little CO2 is needed to turn our planet into an oven. The problem is not just that the equilibrium is disturbed; the problem is that humanity totally depends on an equilibrium that's almost indistuinguishable from there being no CO2 at all; even 400ppm (0.04%!) is
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarification.
Re: (Score:2)
Red to be green (Score:2)
Not fossil carbon, no net change (Score:5, Insightful)
This tired old argument again? It's been known for years, usually brought up as part of anti-hydro power campaigns typically funded by our pro-fossil fuel lobbying friends.
While not good, this isn't really that bad. Consider for a moment why we call them fossil fuels. That is taking carbon which was long out of play and adding it into the system.
With lakes dams and still rivers it is burping up atmospheric carbon which was already in play over the last decades or centuries anyway and wasn't neccesarily on track to be sequestered. That orgaic matter recently took the carbon out of the atmosphere, thus no net change to the amount of carbon in the system. If it comee up as methane that's not good for 125 years or so until it breaks down to CO2 again, but that pales in comparison to the effect of ancient carbon being added to the system.
Re: (Score:3)
There are two carbon cycles. The atmosphere-lithosphere quick turn-around one, and the larger much slower one which includes that plus the crust and upper mantle.
Time scales and orders of magnitude
Unforested tree stands are CO2 generators (Score:2)
Have you seen the decay beneath an old growth canopy - it's simply a solid carpet of decay - producing CO2 and methane at an astronomical rate. And that doesn't even mention the amount of CO2 and methane produced by the billions of creatures wihch call the forest home. Old growth can't possibly expect to keep up with the CO2 generation, and does noting to ameliorate the methane production. What we need to do is completely deforest the planet and plant new, fast growth trees to both eliminate the forest flo
Unforested tree stands are CO2 NEUTRAL (Score:2)
Have you seen the decay beneath an old growth canopy - it's simply a solid carpet of decay - producing CO2 and methane at an astronomical rate.
The material below the canopy that's decaying is, of course, returning to the atmosphere carbon that was removed from the atmosphere by the forest in the first place: net carbon emissions, zero.
Old growth forests are, for the most part, very close to net carbon neutral.
To remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the biomass produced has to be sequestered.
Re: (Score:1)
*snooty uptight asshole voice*The material below the canopy that's decaying is, of course, returning to the atmosphere carbon that was removed from the atmosphere by the forest in the first place: net carbon emissions, zero.
Well chuckles, wat about the methane mentioned, which is 1000x more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2? CO2 is so ridiculously bad at being a greenhouse gas the average temperature hardly moved even as humanity doubled emissions.
As stated the only solution is to scorch the forests.
Re: (Score:2)
To remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the biomass produced has to be sequestered.
Roll the logging trucks.
Grow young trees and cut them down before they die, fall down and rot (producing CO2 and methane).
Kill all beavers! (Score:2)
It's those little bastards that taught us how to do this. The little anti-environmental vermin have been polluting the planet for millennia
Re: (Score:2)
Kill all beaver! It's those little bastards that taught us how to do this. The little anti-environmental vermin have been polluting the planet for millennia
We did [wikipedia.org]. The North American population was 60 million animals. There's something less than 12 million of them now. Most were dead by the 1830s.
Re: (Score:3)
Eat a beaver for the environment!
Country, continent, union. (Score:2)
Why would you class "the EU" along with single countries?
Does saying that the US pollutes more than any single first-world European country hurt for you?
Re: (Score:2)
The countries that make up the EU report their emissions as one entity. There is a single goal that is set at the upper level after discussion between all of the country representatives and each country is free to meet that goal in a method that best suits the country. When going to climate talks all of the countries go but act under the EU authority.
Let's just get rid of the people (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's just get rid of the people. They are clearly very bad for the environment, no matter what they do or don't do. And we have the technology to decimate the population in like half an hour, and cool down the earth as well through nuclear winter. How's that for problem solving?
Re: (Score:2)
How's that for problem solving?
I think that the stock markets might crash if that happened.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the stock markets might crash if that happened.
Not if we do it correctly. If everyone is dead, but trading algorithms left running then likely markets will be sustained and our investments will be safe.
But.. wetlands (Score:2)
By this same argument wetlands (swamps, estuaries, ponds, etc) are major polluters. Just more clickbait as 'science'.
obvious bullshit (Score:1)
This is nothing but anti-hydropower propaganda. Probably funded by fossil fuel interests.
Go stand next to a man-made reservoir. Then stand near a fossil fuel power plant. Then you tell me which pollutes more.
Hint: some people will pay extra to live in a house next to a reservoir. Whereas houses near fossil power plants are dirt cheap, because absolutely no one thinks that's a good place to live.
Possibly offset by other water management efforts (Score:2)
Before the 1940s, Mississippi used to have horrible flooding problems whenever the Mississippi River got high. That effectively caused the same problems reservoirs cause today. That has been fixed with a series of levies and reservoirs.
Also, at some point reservoirs become semi-natural lakes. That organic matter rots and they are like any other lake. Its not like they keep emitting greenhouse gasses forever.
I don't buy that (Score:2)