1,000 Super-Emitting Methane Leaks Risk Triggering Climate Tipping Points 111
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: More than 1,000 "super-emitter" sites gushed the potent greenhouse gas methane into the global atmosphere in 2022, the Guardian can reveal, mostly from oil and gas facilities. The worst single leak spewed the pollution at a rate equivalent to 67m running cars. Separate data also reveals 55 "methane bombs" around the world -- fossil fuel extraction sites where gas leaks alone from future production would release levels of methane equivalent to 30 years of all US greenhouse gas emissions.
Methane emissions cause 25% of global heating today and there has been a "scary" surge since 2007, according to scientists. This acceleration may be the biggest threat to keeping below 1.5C of global heating and seriously risks triggering catastrophic climate tipping points, researchers say. The two new datasets identify the sites most critical to preventing methane-driven disaster, as tackling leaks from fossil fuel sites is the fastest and cheapest way to slash methane emissions. Some leaks are deliberate, venting the unwanted gas released from underground while drilling for oil into the air, and some are accidental, from badly maintained or poorly regulated equipment.
Fast action would dramatically slow global heating as methane is short-lived in the atmosphere. An emissions cut of 45% by 2030, which the UN says is possible, would prevent 0.3C of temperature rise. Methane emissions therefore present both a grave threat to humanity, but also a golden opportunity to decisively act on the climate crisis. [...] The methane super-emitter sites were detected by analysis of satellite data, with the US, Russia and Turkmenistan responsible for the largest number from fossil fuel facilities. The biggest event was a leak of 427 tonnes an hour in August, near Turkmenistan's Caspian coast and a major pipeline. That single leak was equivalent to the rate of emissions from 67m cars, or the hourly national emissions of France. Future methane emissions from fossil fuel sites -- the methane bombs -- are also forecast to be huge, threatening the entire global "carbon budget" limit required to keep heating below 1.5C. More than half of these fields are already in production, including the three biggest methane bombs, which are all in North America.
Methane emissions cause 25% of global heating today and there has been a "scary" surge since 2007, according to scientists. This acceleration may be the biggest threat to keeping below 1.5C of global heating and seriously risks triggering catastrophic climate tipping points, researchers say. The two new datasets identify the sites most critical to preventing methane-driven disaster, as tackling leaks from fossil fuel sites is the fastest and cheapest way to slash methane emissions. Some leaks are deliberate, venting the unwanted gas released from underground while drilling for oil into the air, and some are accidental, from badly maintained or poorly regulated equipment.
Fast action would dramatically slow global heating as methane is short-lived in the atmosphere. An emissions cut of 45% by 2030, which the UN says is possible, would prevent 0.3C of temperature rise. Methane emissions therefore present both a grave threat to humanity, but also a golden opportunity to decisively act on the climate crisis. [...] The methane super-emitter sites were detected by analysis of satellite data, with the US, Russia and Turkmenistan responsible for the largest number from fossil fuel facilities. The biggest event was a leak of 427 tonnes an hour in August, near Turkmenistan's Caspian coast and a major pipeline. That single leak was equivalent to the rate of emissions from 67m cars, or the hourly national emissions of France. Future methane emissions from fossil fuel sites -- the methane bombs -- are also forecast to be huge, threatening the entire global "carbon budget" limit required to keep heating below 1.5C. More than half of these fields are already in production, including the three biggest methane bombs, which are all in North America.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is no plausible way to keep warming below 1.5 C.
That would have been possible if we had taken decisive action 20 years ago, but we didn't and now that ship has sailed.
The world is taking the problem somewhat more seriously now, so 2.0 C is feasible.
Just give up now, eh (Score:1, Insightful)
This seems to say that hurriedly cutting emissions everywhere else is pretty much moot in the face of these "super emitting sites", so we can either try and shut these down, if that is at all feasible, or just give up.
Everything else is just making nice but futile.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not futile, we need to lower the green house gas emissions, we must fix this issues, but alone might not be enough... also, some accident and you blow up your limits, so you need to lower everywhere else too, the more we lower, the more flexible everything can be.
Also, most of the emissions are either coal or petrol related, so lowering the demand for petrol, we also pressure this super emitters with lower demand and higher competition... , either they close or to improve their methods. Either they r
Re: Just give up now, eh (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet Indonesia just canceled a 1.3 GW coal project. They will install wind and solar instead.
Most new power in Africa is local solar, bypassing corrupt state monopolies.
Progress is happening everywhere, not just in the 1st World.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet Indonesia just canceled a 1.3 GW coal project. They will install wind and solar instead.
Most new power in Africa is local solar, bypassing corrupt state monopolies.
Progress is happening everywhere, not just in the 1st World.
Don't you mean 'paid for by loans from China?' Won't the defaults on these power systems be as painful as their previous defaults on improved port facilities, with China taking over control of those ports under threat of violence?
Re: Just give up now, eh (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the US or the World Bank is tripping over themselves to offer them a better deal. Indonesia as Chinese client state is better than global climate apocalypse.
Re: Just give up now, eh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is just a problem because Israel and USA are creating those problems. Yes, Iran regime aren't saints, but neither a Israel and USA.
Solve the Israel/Palestine problem, where both parts win (not just Israel) and half of the middle east problems are solved... with less radical fuel from that conflit, several countries will slowly get more stable.
Stop pressuring Iran and trying to for a regime change (it will happen naturally, external pressure just make it stronger)... instead do talk and make agreements.
Re:Just give up now, eh (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you plan to "shame" China/Russia/India??? Those countries combined dwarf even the US in terms of methane emissions.
Top 5 emitters of methane in 2021:
China 58.4Mt
India 31.8Mt
US 31.5Mt
Russia 24.6Mt
Brasil 19.6Mt
https://www.iea.org/reports/gl... [iea.org]
Of those 5 countries, only the US and Brasil are even a party to the Global Methane Reduction Pledge.
Best,
Re: (Score:2)
The super emitters aren't China/Russia/India. They are specific companies operating within those countries. But if you want to shame an entire country based on consolidated emissions then you need to also correct for differences in size of relative industry and support for the people. Based on your numbers, China and India don't look too bad in the emissions per capita range. Or do you believe you are worth more as a human and thus deserve a right to emit more than someone in China / India?
The earth doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't talking about countries, we are talking about companies.
Simply rise the embargo flag to those companies, give some deadline date to solve the issues and control emissions or they will be forbid to sell to a bunch of countries.. You have to hit them where it hurts... but needs to be a real embargo, not a "if you drop the price, we still buy it from third part companies)
The problem is usually the same, money and greed, most politicians will not go against big money companies and extra profits usuall
Re: (Score:2)
China is currently building hundreds of coal-fired generating plants. China is the world's biggest emitter of fossil fuels. As we know from the politically-motivated jailing of the two Canadians, (Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig) China has literally no shame. They will do what they want when they want to, and they don't care a whit for anyone else's opinion. The worse global climate change gets, the more coal plants they will build to power their air conditioners.
China is not going to stop burning coal un
Re: (Score:2)
China has built a fuckton of coal fired power plants in the past decade and yet their coal consumption has not gone up by more than a couple of %. In the meantime their increase in energy demand has been met with gas, green energy, even nuclear plants, and a dramatic increase in efficiency of resources burnt i.e. the new plants they've built are shutting down the old ones.
But while you're busy pointing the finger it's worth noting the emissions of most western countries per capita dwarf those of both China
Re: (Score:2)
China is if not only building coal plans (that by the way are mostly to move out existent ones far away from cities, the old ones will be closed), they are also doing heavy build in solar and wind, actually being the country with higher capacity being added in recent years, more than the USA...
you can see that solar generation is increasing much faster in china than in Europe or USA:
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
and have overtaken Europe and USA in wind production
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
So yes,
Re: (Score:1)
The world is taking the problem somewhat more seriously now, so 2.0 C is feasible.
Maybe. Or maybe the greedy assholes and the stupid will be driving things up to 3C or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Why was this down-modded? Global emissions are still rising. We will hit 1.5 early in the 2030s, it's just a fact. Even if everyone did what they've pledged to do (which isn't at all likely or even possible), we're still on track for 2.5 for mid-century.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't we closer to like .2C at this point?
Yes, when you average the recent faster rises along with the slower rises of the past and baseline them against the start of the 20th century you get 0.2C rise. Specifically you currently get 0.2C right now only if you trend all the way back to 1983 and then average the result.
Looking only at the past decade in isolation you get varying result of 0.5-1C depending on the location.
Math is hard, statistics is harder.
Re: (Score:2)
1.5C ... Yeah, that's been going on a decade. Aren't we closer to like .2C at this point? Don't think we can turn back now, all ahead full steam.
You can always turn back. The only question is, how hot does it get? 1.5 C is going to be better than 2 C; 2 C is going to be better than 3 C; and so forth.
Re: All I keep hearing over and over... (Score:2)
Cows are the pariahs of climate change (Score:1)
When they burp they release a ton of methane!
That is just hard science.
Not talking about the amount of methane in a fart!
We should keep sheeps instead of cows to solve the environmental crisis.
Re:Cows are the pariahs of climate change (Score:4, Informative)
We should keep sheeps instead of cows to solve the environmental crisis.
Per kg of meat, sheep are no better than cows. All ruminants burp methane.
Chickens, pigs, and fish are better. Tofu even more so.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if chicken are better than beef, the overall impact of livestock on green house gas is less than 5.8% of total.
See the first graph here [ourworldindata.org].
The amount of 'fugitive emissions from energy production' alone is 5.8%.
So in theory, if we plug all the leaks from energy producers, it will completely offset our meat p
Re: (Score:2)
Skip this, it's only semantics (Score:2)
When did we start substituting "Super-Emitting" for "large," or perhaps "very large?" Even "enormous" isn't as hype.
Oh yeah, when marketers got hold of the headlines instead of the actual news editors.
Re:Skip this, it's only semantics (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually this is not a new term, when tracking leaks, it is refereed as emitters ... usually small quantities... but for BIG volumes is easier to say super emitters, to show how far apart they are from the other ones
Re: Skip this, it's only semantics (Score:2)
The term has been around for a long time, not and not just referring to methane facilities. You can have superemitter cars, landfills, etc.
The distinction between superemitters and "large" emitters is essentially where they land on a histogram of emissions from similar facilities. That histogram has a "fat tail" in that rather than looking Gaussian or lognormal, it starts off looking Gaussian then has a long trailing tail going to high emissions. The "large" emitters are on the high end of the Gaussian. The
Fuel leaks (Score:3)
Methane is the primary constituent of natural gas. You'd think with today's energy prices this would be a problem that the petroleum industry solves voluntarily in the name of greater profits.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
if you drill crude oil, you usually don't care much about gas, as it requires extra setup to capture it. Also the pressure control and fire hazard makes it harder for the drill setup... until not long, it was seen as a secondary product, but yes, with high prices, oil companies are looking at it with other eyes... but still take time and money to replace existent equipment.
We are talking about oil companies, so little care about environment, they only see profit, everything else is other people problems
Re: (Score:3)
Not speaking for OP, but my similar question is: if there's CH4 in the well, wouldn't it make sense (and dollars) to extract and sell it first, and go for the oil later?
Re: (Score:1)
Not speaking for OP, but my similar question is: if there's CH4 in the well, wouldn't it make sense (and dollars) to extract and sell it first, and go for the oil later?
No, the oil is low hanging fruit. Humans almost always go for the low hanging fruit first and think about the consequences later.
Re:Fuel leaks (Score:5, Informative)
Not speaking for OP, but my similar question is: if there's CH4 in the well, wouldn't it make sense (and dollars) to extract and sell it first, and go for the oil later?
No. CH4 is still a comparatively expensive to extract and transport material compared to oil. What you actually find is that a lot of more environmentally conscious oil companies (that's our oxymoron of the day) will compress the CH4 and re-inject it into the well to increase well pressure for extraction of more oil. The oil is far more valuable.
There's logistics issues too:
A VLCC oil tanker can carry 1-2million barrels of crude oil (that's $100million worth).
The largest LNG tankers on the market are around 200000m^3 gas equivalent (that's $15million worth at the current crazy European price).
So unless you have a pipeline you don't exactly have a lot of ability to move methane even if you do get it out of the ground. The sheer volume of production of oil makes it a far more attractive option even at gas prices seen by Europe in Autumn.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you so much for the great info.
Re: (Score:2)
Also the storage problem... Crude is liquid and more or less stable and can be stored mostly in every place with mostly "minimal" security problems... even a small leak is not that critical most of the time and can be controlled :D
Gas is... well, a gas!
You can convert it to liquid, but to normal pressure and temperature, it is back to be a gas...
to store it, you need high pressure containers, that can't have any leaks, gas and air is a explosive mixture that you can not contain. So everything is much more e
Re: (Score:2)
Almost. Gas is a gas and in gas form quite nasty. But in liquid form it is actually quite easy and safe to handle. It doesn't just magic itself to gas suddenly due to the enthalpy of vaporization (same reason a pot of water doesn't instantly explode into steam at 100C but actually requires you to keep your stove on pumping more heat into it).
You need multi-stage cooling to convert gas to LNG, but once it is in that form it's actually stored in very low pressure (~3-8 psi) storage vessels. The tanks are doub
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is to bring in a small MW generators and have it convert the methane to CO2, along with electricity. And much easier to hook up to the grid and sell the electricity.
Basically every modern oil platform already has a gas turbine to generate power on site, they haven't fired oil generators in new projects in over a decade now. One could simply scale these up, providing they are built in the right place. Unfortunately a lot of oil is located in places where there's not really much demand for power, so transmission remains yet another problem.
Re: (Score:2)
transfer energy in very long distances is hard, with electricity is almost impossible without super-conductors. Oil and gas (via a pipeline) are much easier. The best solution is really to build pipelines, but that is still expensive and take a long time to build
But if someone finds a room temperature super conductor, that could be a energy revolution
Re: (Score:2)
Not speaking for OP, but my similar question is: if there's CH4 in the well, wouldn't it make sense (and dollars) to extract and sell it first, and go for the oil later?
Turns out that methane is not very expensive -- at the wellhead, it's production cost is about a dollar per million cubic feet. So, if it costs more than a dollar to capture that million cubic feet for sale, it's not worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, thank you (all). I'm part owner of a bit of land that has gas and neighboring gas wells, and pipelines. No real $ to me, but I've never been part of the business / negotiations. I'm not sure if there's petroleum further down- there may be, but for whatever reason they've been harvesting (mining?) the gas for now. Maybe someday look for petroleum...
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think with today's energy prices this would be a problem that the petroleum industry solves voluntarily in the name of greater profits.
For that to work you need a few things:
a) the ability to capture, convert it into a usable form, and transport it all of which requires infrastructure. Modern oil platforms are being built with gas compressors / liquification units on location, but older ones were not. Todays prices mean nothing for something built 20 years ago.
b) you need the ability to get it to a willing customer. Sure Europe is paying a premium for gas, but in the meantime Russia can't sell it to anyone, with a very large flare running
Re: Fuel leaks (Score:5, Informative)
I work in the methane emissions measurement world, and for years we tried to use "lost profits" as a way to convince operators to more aggressively pursue LDAR (leak detection and repair). But realistically, except in truly exceptional leaks like Aliso Canyon a few years ago, they don't make a dent in the profitability of the facility. Even most of these "superemitters" aren't significantly financially impacted by the leak. The company just does a cost/benefit calculation to realize that the effort to fix is more expensive than the lost profits.
This is where regulation comes in - either forcing companies to do LDAR or fining them enough that it's worth it for them to fix the leak appears to be the only solution.
Superpredator, superspreader, superemitter (Score:2)
Super super dooper!
In other News, Waves of Cascading Nuclear Explos.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Get some education before being scared of what politicians or diplomats say. Look at Mr. Lavrov. He is a prime example of a liar in the course of their duty to Russia: h [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Get some education before being scared of what politicians or diplomats say.
The diplomats are the ones that need education, real education not their wank sessions with former policy and diplomatic people that just tell them what a success they are. US FP has not really changed much in 60 years. Is the US more or less influential today than 60 years ago?
Is US economic growth with respect to our peers more positive or less positive than 60 years ago.
At best US FP has failed less than some of our note worthy peers at the start post war era. Also by the way this idea of deterrence thr
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that lies and deception are common tools at the level of international politics. That is because there is no international law: e.g. a US policeman cannot just arrest Mr Lavrov for fraud. There is an anarchy at the international level. State actors behave based on their perception of what opponents will do. Therefore deception is used to influence perception of the opponent.
I would assume diplomats are quite educated or they would loose their job. Maybe except the ones who are kept in position
emissions cut of 45% by 2030, possible (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To limit the temprature rise to 1.5 C by 2100, we would need to limit the greenhouse gas emissions to 3000 billions of tons of CO2eq. Knowing we already emitted 2400 in the last 100 years, that means we have about 1/4 of what we already emitted left to emit (or 600 billions of tons). With a world population that is 2.5x-3x higher.
To stay under 2C, the limit is 3600 billions of tons of CO2eq, so 1000 billion tons left for the next 80 years (compared to the 2400 billions already emitted in the last 100 years
Re: (Score:2)
The good news in all that, is that at some point, physics and reality will catch up:
What you describe is not good news but the direct consequence of the things we should have tried to avoid: climate and energy crisis. The energy part doesn't seem to worry a lot of people for some reason, I bet it will hit us a lot harder than climate. These disasters will destroy our civilisation not life on earth. Resetting ecosystems doesn't seem to be a big deal in the long run maybe its good and a common event on every planets hosting life.
Re: (Score:1)
What you describe is not good news [...] These disasters will destroy our civilisation not life on earth.
You're right, but as you may have read, never did I say it was good new *for us*.
And actually, I believe humanity will survive anyway, even if not all of it, and not in any way we would like to.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to deploy insanity to the United States. Rabid right wing fascists are already hard at work there trying to turn the country into an unflushed toilet run by their Christian Taliban.
Re: (Score:2)
In Netherland, they're testing how to pit the people against those who feed them. It's working. So next up will deploy that insanity to other countries.
No, why would they? Farmers in the Netherlands don't feed the people. They feed most of Europe and even other parts of the world. Farming in the Netherlands is an insane example of failure of government. Concentrating that amount of industrial production in such a tiny space on the planet is just fucking stupid. The farmers are pretending that without them the Dutch will starve, yet the reality is most of them don't serve the Dutch at all.
Here's some comparisons for you:
Netherlands vs Canada:
Population: 17
Re: (Score:2)
"Concentrating that amount of industrial production in such a tiny space on the planet is just fucking stupid."
The opposite is true - if you can concentrate so much production on such little space then your emissions per kg production would be the lowest.
You are calling the most advance, successful and sustainable farming practices in the world " a failure". Truly, the green cultists are anti human, anti truth, anti math....
Also, you might attract some reasonable discussion if you don't spew epithets towar
Find large-scale emitters and deal with them (Score:4, Insightful)
I see the fossil fuel ghouls are out in force. Well, here's something for the snowflakes to chew on before cancelling me: Corporations intentionally emitting large quantities of methane have gone to war on human civilization. We should treat them accordingly.
Re: Find large-scale emitters and deal with them (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as someone who's job (partially) is to go around the US and measure these superemitters, the vast majority of them don't even know they're leaking that badly. I can't speak for every superemitting facility in every country, but in the US the largest emissions are a result of upsets and malfunctioning components. When a facility operator isn't required to do regular leak checking, they don't bother. I have countless anecdotal stories of pulling up to some O&G facility, hearing the operator say "you won't find any leaks here, we run a tight ship!" The we go out and measure their leaks and say "you're emitting 2 tons/day from over there". They go over and find someone had left a valve wide open, or that the valve was broken, or that their enclosed flare had gone out, or that one of their seals had ruptured, or a thief hatch (real thing) was left open. If they had done regular, aggressive leak checking they would have found it. But they don't.
A simple, fast, and cheap way to rapidly identify superemitters remotely, coupled with strong regulations and fines, would have a huge impact on the O&G supply chain's climate impact. That technology doesn't yet exist, but some of the newer really high spatial resolution methane imaging satellites are getting close.
None of those efforts to find superemitters are driven by the O&G companies themselves. They just don't care. There is malice emanating from those O&G companies, but it comes in the form of indifference to the problem they're causing, and prioritizing short-term profits over long-term environmental impact. You can call that declaring war, I guess, but either way it's hard to fight that indifference.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for an excellent comment.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations intentionally emitting large quantities of methane have gone to war on human civilization. We should treat them accordingly.
Corporations exist to make money within the framework of the governments which regulate them, nothing more, nothing less. There's no bonus prize for being a good corporate citizen. If you want to fight a war you need to do that with your government not with the corporations. Otherwise you're fighting from a legal losing position and will get nowhere.
SpaceX (Score:1)
Is there a site that catalogs (Score:2)
It did strike me as a wee bit strange that despite the pandemic lockdown, which is the closest humans will get to full climate-saving behavior change, greenhouse gas emissions only went down by less than 10 percent.
This despite virtually all cars being off the road and people doing nothing all day. So if itâ(TM)s not cars and people out and about, what is causing all the greenhouse gas emissions?
Re: Is there a site that catalogs (Score:3)
Individual car use may have gone down, but shipping and goods transport went up. Essential workers, like the brave hero at Chipotle who made my burrito, still had to go to work. On top of that, with everyone at home people kept their air conditioning or heating on during the day, when they otherwise would have turned it down. So I'm not sure that total energy consumption changed a whole lot, it just moved around.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprise, road transport is only 12% of the total world emissions. [ourworldindata.org]
Which basically means we're fucked if we try to reduce just transport and adopt a "business as usual" approach for the rest, btw.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprise, road transport is only 12% of the total world emissions.
Exactly. And of those 12%, half of it is for trucks (shipping and goods transportation). The pandemic saw a rise of those, so the reducation of greenhouse gases resulting from some people (non-essential workers, not so many of them, even if many people reading slashdot would fall into that category) not taking their individual cars was not that much.
Overall, the CO2eq emission reduction resulting from the pandemic was between 5-7%. We would need that (on top of each other) every year until 2050 to just meet
Re: (Score:2)
and don't forget that 5-7% is a mirage as well. The economic inflation we are seeing now shows we did not destroy the demand we shifted it. Which is why we have have exceeded 2019 levels already.
Fact is we kept all those airlines and other infrastructure afloat which has allowed a snap-back to business as usual for the most part, but its also meant that everyone who was going to take that trip but delayed it is doing so now.
To actually accrue carbon savings on anything close to the rates required we'd need
Why should we believe the UN? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Methane Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (Score:3)
If you want to up your eco-anxiety to cold war "looming nuclear exchange" levels, here's your ticket: The Methane Clathrate Gun Hypothesis [csulb.edu].
The gist is that we might have already pushed into cascading effects that are just picking up momentum and nature is ready to show us how to do climate change "epic style" and we might just be super-screwed.
It's "just" a hypothesis, but it sure is nightmare material.
This article on Taco Tuesday? (Score:1)
Do as I say not as I do (Score:2)
After Bashing Natural Gas, Oregon Gov. Installs $300K Natural Gas Generator at Mansion.
https://thepostmillennial.com/... [thepostmillennial.com]
We are doomed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That used to be the case, but nowadays, it's a fairly small community. The moderation has become increasingly partisan and it's driven or hidden a great number of users away. /. is a dying platform.
Re: (Score:2)
\ () /
Re: (Score:2)
I think the higher than average intelligent people have given up on such discussions on Slashdot knowing full well that the comments will be overwhelmed by propaganda, shilling, or pointing to some thing like an artificial border in an attempt to shift blame to anyone but themselves, ignoring that a supposedly technically advanced western country like the US is standing on number on the list overall, and number 2 if you look at just oil and gas related activity.
Maybe? (Score:2)
Maybe we should focus on stuff like this, instead of flying private jets to global conferences where the 0.01% get to shake their finger at the rest of us for not living responsibly enough?
Re: (Score:2)
The global conferences are where multinational agreements could be made to reduce the methane emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
How many countries are meeting their Paris Obligations, again?
Re: (Score:2)
The UK and the EU have. Significant progress.
Re: (Score:2)
O rly?
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
https://climateactiontracker.o... [climateactiontracker.org]
EU: insufficient
https://climateactiontracker.o... [climateactiontracker.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They may not be 'sufficient', but significant progress has been made as a result of the climate conferences. And it sure ain't "the 0.01% get to shake their finger at the rest of us", emissions have been cut.
https://www.reuters.com/market... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh they PLEDGED to increase their targets!
My goodness, that's basically the SAME as actually meeting them!
Hahaha so dumb.
What's Europeanish for "talk is cheap"?
https://www.euractiv.com/secti... [euractiv.com]
NONE of them are MEETING the targets. Full stop. "significant progress" is mealy-mouthed rationalization, but I understand, this is language everyone in the Global Warming Industry has come to accept since Tokyo - nobody ever meets the ambitious goals, everyone meets to get a "participation award" (congratulations,
Eat the rich (Score:2)
If something were done about all the super-yachts and luxury jetliners the elite use on regularity, it'd be more of a reduction in GHGs than the aggregate of all cars on the road. But that doesn't fit a narrative, so it's not even evaluated.
Also - no mention of the pipeline from Russia which was bombed and has been spewing into the North Sea? That isn't directly spewing methane, but all the production which went into it certainly should have been a factor.
Nordstream Pipeline bombing? (Score:1)
How much did that release?
The elite can go fuck themselves. really.
The internet aged has allowed these dickheads to coordinate their stupidity on a scale not capable in the past - the 'Networked Elites' are imbeciles who care only for themselves ;)
To late!!! (Score:2)
Pretty sure the permafrost that's trapping a lot of methane is already on it's way to defrosting and release what is essentially a methane bomb. At this point, we are definitely passing the 2c threshold and should start planning what to do after. Thinking we can avoid this is just a joke and it's beyond not funny anymore.
Especially since so much of the rest of the world is just increasing it's greenhouse gas outputs instead of reducing.
Guess that doesn't go along with the narrative though.
It's the end of th
The climate already passed the tipping point... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No idea who blew Nordstream up, but that should have been in the list. It was equivalent to 39 days of that one Turkmenistan leak (of 427 tonnes an hour), I read the article and did not see how many hours that leak when on for.
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of interesting links on the subject:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/02/10/hersh-nord-stream-sabotage/ [snopes.com] and https://unherd.com/thepost/osint-picks-holes-in-seymour-hershs-nord-stream-claims/ [unherd.com]. The first one alone makes it clear that a/c posts on this subject have zero credibility.