'Garbage Lasagna': Dumps Are a Big Driver of Warming, Study Says (nytimes.com) 61
Decades of buried trash is releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, at higher rates than previously estimated, the researchers said. From a report: These landfills also belch methane, a powerful, planet-warming gas, on average at almost three times the rate reported to federal regulators, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science. The study measured methane emissions at about 20 percent of about 1,200 large, operating landfills in the United States. It adds to a growing body of evidence that landfills are a significant driver of climate change, said Riley Duren, founder of the public-private partnership Carbon Mapper, who took part in the study.
"We've largely been in the dark, as a society, about actual emissions from landfills," said Mr. Duren, a former NASA engineer and scientist. "This study pinpoints the gaps." Methane emissions from oil and gas production, as well as from livestock, have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. Like carbon dioxide the main greenhouse gas that's warming the world, methane acts like a blanket in the sky, trapping the sun's heat. And though methane lasts for a shorter time in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, it is more potent. Its warming effect is more than 80 times as powerful as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that landfills are the third largest source of human-caused methane emissions in the United States, emitting as much greenhouse gas as 23 million gasoline cars driven for a year. Organic waste like food scraps can emit copious amounts of methane when they decompose.
"We've largely been in the dark, as a society, about actual emissions from landfills," said Mr. Duren, a former NASA engineer and scientist. "This study pinpoints the gaps." Methane emissions from oil and gas production, as well as from livestock, have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. Like carbon dioxide the main greenhouse gas that's warming the world, methane acts like a blanket in the sky, trapping the sun's heat. And though methane lasts for a shorter time in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, it is more potent. Its warming effect is more than 80 times as powerful as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that landfills are the third largest source of human-caused methane emissions in the United States, emitting as much greenhouse gas as 23 million gasoline cars driven for a year. Organic waste like food scraps can emit copious amounts of methane when they decompose.
Landfills, and dupes (Score:5, Informative)
Mr. Wonka says... (Score:2)
There's gonna be a lot of garbage today. [getyarn.io]
Perhaps we can use the methane to fuel a generator that can power a blockchain-based AI to scan /. for dupes. Or we could just throw the editors in the the dumpster and let them battle it out with the trash pandas. Either way works for me.
Re: Mr. Wonka says... (Score:3)
What's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's organic waste decomposing - which was never, ever going to be sequestered anyway, and which is being replaced by new organics being grown by humans for humans. It's a cycle. This ISN'T like using fossil fuels - rather than constantly adding to the atmosphere, this would appear to be a cycle. And even without humans, presumably the biomass would be growing and dying regardless.
Having said that... being aware of it, there's no reason we shouldn't try to capture the emissions and at least flare it off to reduce the overall impact to global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Same deal as when people complain about cow burps and farts - methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Presumably though, if you captured and burned it (which many landfills do), since it started as part of the natural carbon cycle, you're correct that it would no longer be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Cow farts are a non-zero, provable, part of climate change.
No, I'm not a vegetarian, I love me some steaks. I still have to admit that cow farts are bad.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one thing however that makes CO2 drastically more dangerous than Methane.
Methane lasts in the atmosphere 7 to 12 years. CO2 for centuries or even millenia.
We can get an easy win by reducing Methane. It'll help. But the CO2 is the stuff that cumulates over time and causes the real long term headache.
Re: What's the difference? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the methane in the atmosphere doesn't go away, it becomes CO2. So the methane does more damage at first, then becomes the longer lasting CO2 to do more damage.
Capturing and using the CO2 is a bit further improvement if it reduces use of fossil methane.
Of course, to actually solve the problem (eventually), we have to get off of fossil fuels entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
there's no reason we shouldn't try to capture the emissions and at least flare it off
Capture it. Burn it in power plants (reducing demand for other fossil fuels) and capture the CO2 at these point sources.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not a closed loop. New energy is continually being added to the dumps in the form of the chemical energy of the "garbage lasagna". It's just a manner of harnessing that energy using a process that will make collecting and dealing with the byproducts in an environmentally sound manner as economically attractive as possible.
Re: (Score:1)
You do have to add more energy back to the system, but that energy doesn't have to come from fossil fuels.
Re: What's the difference? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's organic waste decomposing - which was never, ever going to be sequestered anyway, and which is being replaced by new organics being grown by humans for humans. It's a cycle.
Just because the cycle starts as something that takes CO2 out of the air doesn't make it global warming neutral. The key part here is the period during which it is methane. We would literally be better off setting it on fire as this would have less impact on the environment from a global warming perspective. Just because we grew something that used CO2 in the first place doesn't mean it was naturally going to go through anerobic decomposition (natural decomposition for most leafy matter doesn't follow that
Re: What's the difference? (Score:1)
We know how long methane and CO2 lasts in the atmosphere. The best thing would be to burn the trash or capture the methane and run the exhaust through a scrubber (even a pool of water that is later evaporated would be sufficient in 3rd world countries) instead of having giant landfills that attract diseases and let the poisons leak into ground water.
Re: (Score:2)
or capture the methane and run the exhaust through a scrubber (even a pool of water that is later evaporated would be sufficient in 3rd world countries)
That's not how that works. Methane doesn't change molecularly in water and evaporating water (or even agitating it) would release the methane back in the air. You literally have either convert it to something (like through thermal oxidation - i.e. setting it on fire), or sequester it in something that won't release it (e.g. appropriate underground formations).
Re: (Score:1)
The exhaust from burning methane/trash is not methane.
Re: (Score:2)
Capturing methane and running it through water isn't a solution. I think you meant "burn the trash or capture the methane (and burn that)...."
Re: What's the difference? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So burning it now *is* the better choice of 2 terrible choices. But *only* reclaimed methane, not nat gas from the ground
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flaring off garbage dump methane - or capturing it - has been a thing since at least the '70s, that I know of.
Re: (Score:2)
Flaring off garbage dump methane - or capturing it - has been a thing since at least the '70s, that I know of.
Yeah, I thought I was kidnapped by the wayback machine as well. I guess a new generation is discovering something no one knew about. Like how every generation thinks it discovered sex.
Flaring it is the cheap solution of course. Capturing it and putting it to a productive use would be even better. But if we haven't figured out by now that we just have too many people on this earth to support what we are doing, we never will. We have what is best termed a "synthetic support system" which is perfectly acce
Re: (Score:2)
As with every industrial process, the waste is considered useless and or unimportant until it isn't.
But industry isn't likely to do anything that costs them extra so we need regulation to force such changes far ahead of their short term bottom line.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is anaerobic decomposition, which is semi-rare in nature and guaranteed in landfills.
Re: (Score:3)
"Propaganda"
I have a questions about the mental model of climate change deniers, especially those in their 40s and older, because those might have experienced how seasons changed over the decades first hand (and might even start telling about it "when I was young ..")
With all the "propaganda" or better scientific reports, especially in combination with the personal experience in mind, along with basic petro-chemical understanding that,
fossil fuels(oil, gas, coal) are indeed "pre-historic" carbon that's sour
Re: (Score:2)
How in the name of any god of sanity, when all things point in one direction, can anybody still be so ignorant that the climate change is not happening, driven by human fossil fuel burning?
I mean it is basically on the level of a four year old being warned about a hot surface, touching it, feeling pain, and when being asked about it denying that he actually slightly burned his hand.
After years of seeing the data, knowing the physics, and how they match up, I have come to the conclusion that many people claiming denial simply like the warmer weather. It's a sort of semi-solipsistic outlook, for certain.
Let's look at it here in Pennsylvania. Yeah, these past few winters have been pretty nice. And this year, we really had no winter. Got cold a couple days, I think the coldest here was a short dip to 13 degrees F. But a rebound to the 50s and sixties, and a few trips into the 70's. The
Re: Slashdot is the home of climate warming... (Score:1)
Very few people deny it is happening, the exact causes are hotly debated in the scientific community and the prescriptions of the younger generation are completely out of whack with reality.
The generation of my parents (60s-80s) railed against Vietnam and then when that died down, nuclear and set back the solution for at least 5 decades. Currently even the Greta Thunberg and Joe Biden style progressives have implicitly or explicitly admitted that was a huge mistake and are now promoting nuclear power.
So wha
Re: Slashdot is the home of climate warming... (Score:2)
Again, again (Score:5, Insightful)
Tasks for Slashdot editor coming on-shift.
1. Go to desk, drop stuff, coat, etc.
2. Grab a cup of favorite hot liquid, chat with colleagues.
3. Review headlines from last 24 hours.
4. Start actual work.
Re: (Score:2)
5. Profit.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but (Score:3, Informative)
what's the difference between the methane from my table scraps at the dump and the methane from those same table scraps in my compost pile?
Unless the proferred solution is to burn the trash for fuel, what's the point of singling out one kind of biological decay versus that same biological decay in a different context?
Re: (Score:2)
what's the difference between the methane from my table scraps at the dump and the methane from those same table scraps in my compost pile?
No difference besides the smug satisfaction you get when your neighbors ask "Eww, what's that stink?" and you shrug and respond "Must be you, I don't smell anything." Well, at least until the wind changes direction and the fumes from your outdoor stink pile start wafting into your home.
Re:Not to put too fine a point on it, but (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just throw it in the garbage and let it rot somewhere else...
Re: (Score:2)
Or just throw it in the garbage and let it rot somewhere else...
And then pay extra to go buy fertiliser for your garden? Why add that extra expense and step in the middle?
Re: (Score:2)
Or just throw it in the garbage and let it rot somewhere else...
And then pay extra to go buy fertiliser for your garden? Why add that extra expense and step in the middle?
In addition, you know what is in your compost. The commercial stuff often has road kill in it, treated lumber scrap, and grass clippings often have chemicals you might not want getting in your food.
But as people have pointed out, if your compost stinks, you're doing it wrong. Done correctly, paying attention to the composition (no meat especially) a good mix of green and brown, and it actually smells good, especially the final product.
Re:Not to put too fine a point on it, but (Score:5, Informative)
aerobic decomposition vs anaerobic decomposition. Nobody at the dump is turning the pile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_anaerobic_and_aerobic_digestion
Re: Not to put too fine a point on it, but (Score:2)
Landfill causes decomposition in an anaerobic manner. Your home compost is likely well ventilated, so methane production per kg of decomposed mass is far lower.
Re: (Score:2)
what's the difference between the methane from my table scraps at the dump and the methane from those same table scraps in my compost pile?
Unless the proferred solution is to burn the trash for fuel, what's the point of singling out one kind of biological decay versus that same biological decay in a different context?
Aerobic versus anaerobic decay. Your compost pile should be aerated every so often, either via a rake or often it's in a rolling drum. Then it just provides CO2.
Landfills are anaerobic. Dump that trash in, cover it up with a layer of dirt, then rinse and repeat until the landfill is full.
Call in the fracking companies (Score:1)
News at 11 (Score:3)
First off, I'm not dismissing nor minimizing this important story - if it's a significant source of GHG's then we need to be aware of it.
That said, oil companies knew in the 1950's what the then-future - i.e. "today" - held for us. If we had started minimizing and mitigating back then, and living less excessive lifestyles, climate change would be less of a problem now.
I'm getting tired of all of these "OMG! whateverz will we do!" moments. If the developed world had started being less rapacious and more responsible 60+ years ago, we'd be in much better shape now. Instead, collectively speaking we're still going all "Ooh! Shiny!" over LLM's, cryptocurrency, and cheap disposable conveniences which are choking us to death.
Our vanity and our unaddressed existential angst are killing us.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, I'm not dismissing nor minimizing this important story - if it's a significant source of GHG's then we need to be aware of it.
That said, oil companies knew in the 1950's what the then-future - i.e. "today" - held for us.
We knew before that. There's an illustration from a Popular Science magazine from around 1910 speaking of the future in a coal burning culture.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect But from the discovery of the greenhouse effect, and the understanding of the products of combustion. That was a long time ago, first being raised by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The physics is sound, and has been known from soon after the industrial revolution began.
If we had started minimizing and mitigating back then, and living less excessive lifestyles, climate change would be less of a problem now.
A very difficult thing to do. Competing against the quite
Re: (Score:2)
We knew before that. There's an illustration from a Popular Science magazine from around 1910 speaking of the future in a coal burning culture.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect But from the discovery of the greenhouse effect, and the understanding of the products of combustion. That was a long time ago, first being raised by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The physics is sound, and has been known from soon after the industrial revolution began.
Thanks for the history lesson - that's good to know.
If we had started minimizing and mitigating back then, and living less excessive lifestyles, climate change would be less of a problem now.
A very difficult thing to do. Competing against the quite human desire for comfort, longer life, and the technology to do those things. A side effect of being an ecological generalist. The only solid way to lower release of greenhouse gases to pre industrial revolution is to return to pre-industrial revolution lifestyles.
Understood. And I think that, up until the 60's, or the 70's at the latest, that line of thinking applies. But after that we could have adopted a less wasteful, less disposability-oriented lifestyle. We wouldn't have been able to stop GHG emissions, but we could have slowed them down and bought ourselves more time. And I think we could have done that while actually having better lifestyles.
So I'm suspecting that Mother Nature will take care of this problem in her own demure way.
Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. Not for myself - I'm too old to ha
Re: (Score:2)
Understood. And I think that, up until the 60's, or the 70's at the latest, that line of thinking applies. But after that we could have adopted a less wasteful, less disposability-oriented lifestyle. We wouldn't have been able to stop GHG emissions, but we could have slowed them down and bought ourselves more time. And I think we could have done that while actually having better lifestyles.
So I'm suspecting that Mother Nature will take care of this problem in her own demure way.
Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. Not for myself - I'm too old to have much in the way of worries about my own future here. I'm afraid for the kids and grandkids of friends and family members.
Boy howdy yes. We even got a small dose of what happens when we try to clean up a bit. When we stopped using so much bunker fuel in cargo ships, the temps rose higher, and quicker than the earlier predictions. And that's why some people actually want to pollute to lower the temps.
It's maximum irony that the misguided atmospheric aerosol injection into the atmosphere crowd believes is something that the oil and coal industries can get behind. For a few decades anyhow until it runs low and the temps start
Re: (Score:2)
Our vanity and our unaddressed existential angst are killing us.
No. People like you dismissing discussions on actual solutions are killing us. Unless you invented a time machine, what the oil industry did in the 60s (or even what they did on the 29th March 2024) is completely irrelevant. That is the past, and we can't change it.
But we can change the future, and to change the future we need to understand it, discuss it, and address it as a matter of policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Our vanity and our unaddressed existential angst are killing us.
No. People like you dismissing discussions on actual solutions are killing us.
In what way, pray tell, am I "dismissing discussions on actual solutions"?
Unless you invented a time machine, what the oil industry did in the 60s (or even what they did on the 29th March 2024) is completely irrelevant. That is the past, and we can't change it.
Do you disagree with the sentiment that "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? AFAIC studying history for the lessons it offers is never irrelevant.
But we can change the future, and to change the future we need to understand it, discuss it, and address it as a matter of policy.
I entirely agree with that. But you seem to think that it disagrees with or somehow constitutes a rebuttal of my original comment. It does not.
Re: (Score:2)
If we had started minimizing and mitigating back then, and living less excessive lifestyles, climate change would be less of a problem now.
I am glad that my work made an economy where "excessive lifestyles" could be had. I did not get to participate in it. Every form of carbon release for me was necessary to continue living.
I drove a car. Did I have a choice? Not really. I had to drive 40 miles to work every day. Could I have lived closer? Not economically possible. (I do live right across the street right now, so super win!)
I took flights and cruises all around the world. Well, again, no choice. The US Military has needs and I participated in
Zero-Waste Household (Score:1)
It's not all that hard to make your household Zero-Waste. If you feel that badly about landfill methane, then make your household Zero-Waste and stop contributing to the problem.
Burn more of it then. (Score:2)
Burn more of the methane then.
Once burned it is much less of a problem, the energy from burning it is used for generating electricity, so just do more of that.
Much much greener than letting it escape and way easier than trying to capture and store.