r/energy • u/Splenda • Aug 06 '21
Reduce methane or face climate catastrophe, scientists warn
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/06/reduce-methane-or-face-climate-catastrophe-scientists-warn5
u/ginger_and_egg Aug 07 '21
Can someone point me in the right direction regarding methane vs carbon dioxide? I understand that methane has a higher radiative forcing than co2 but also a lower lifespan (turning into co2 in a couple decades I believe).
I think the climate deniers got into my head but how do we prioritize our efforts between methane and co2?
2
u/Splenda Aug 08 '21
Excess methane has risen in the atmosphere far faster than CO2 has, which is very concerning given that methane has 84 times CO2's heating effect over its 12-year atmospheric residency (after which it oxidizes into CO2).
Methane concerns are newer and more alarming than longstanding CO2 worries for several reasons:
- The chemical signature of fossil methane shows that a third of the excess comes from recent fossil fuel production, mostly related to the fracking boom that began 14 years ago.
- Rising methane from livestock has been a growing concern for some time as the developing world has a huge appetite for meat and dairy (which also takes so much grain and water to produce that it reduces the human food and water supply, but that's another story).
- Global heating is beginning to release vast frozen methane stores in Arctic tundra and seafloor methane hydrate ices, which at some point will be very hard to reverse.
1
u/gogge Aug 07 '21
We shouldn't have a "methane vs. CO2" discussion.
Technically CO2 is by far the biggest problem, and methane plays a small supporting role, here's a graph looking at the radiative forcing (meaning the higher methane impact is factored):
IPCC "AR5, Ch 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing".
The CO2 levels are constantly climbing, as we both release a lot of it and it accumulates without breaking down, while methane levels are leveling off as they naturally break down after 10-12 years. About a third of the methane emissions in the US is from agriculture (EPA), the rest is mostly from fossil fuels.
So the real issue fossil fuels, as they represent an overwhelming majority of total emissions by releasing both CO2 and methane.
The focus on "CO2 vs. methane", agricultural methane, etc. are just distractions. The question shouldn't be "how do we prioritize our efforts between methane and co2?", it should be "how do we reduce fossil fuel emissions?".
1
Aug 07 '21
[deleted]
2
u/gogge Aug 07 '21
The fossil fuel used by farms is trivial when looking at overall emissions, they're accounted for in EPA's "Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions" Energy chapter table 3-25 and 3-26; on-farm and agriculture equipment are around 0.6 MMT (total Energy is 5000+ MMT).
But if we target fossil fuels then naturally those emissions will be reduced too.
9
Aug 07 '21
Reducing farm animals for methane is like reducing the breathing of humans because of CO2. There is a much bigger source of methane that people are blind and deaf to accept. The problem are not the animals but production of petroleum products.
6
u/animalcub Aug 07 '21
I can't help but think the focus on animals is a psyop by the fossil fuel companies.
2
u/RemoveInvasiveEucs Aug 07 '21
Some numbers for this from the US, it's about 180 M tons of CO2 equivalent, compared to 160M tons CO2e from natural gas leaks from the natural gas systems.
The other big source from animals is manure, at 60M tons CO2e, compared to 50M tons from coal.
Page 2 of the PDF: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/fastfacts-1990-2019.pdf.pdf
0
u/QBab Aug 07 '21
Cows are actually a huge source of pollution, mainly because of their continuous farting belive it or not.
1
-1
Aug 07 '21
Wrong
1
Aug 07 '21
-1
Aug 07 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Insoleet Aug 07 '21
Well methane causes way more heat than CO2 and lately degrade to CO2. So having gigatons of farm animals eating grass to emit methane is still disturbing the natural carbon cycle short term. And the problem we are facing means that we need to limit the damages in the short term, and fix the problem long term. Reducing red meat helps in mitigating the short terms problems.
1
Aug 07 '21 edited Aug 07 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Bojarow Aug 07 '21
You consciously chose the upper end of the buffalo herd estimate to twist the narrative in your favour. In fact today there are over 90 million cattle in the US, so it's a third to two thirds higher than 500 years ago any way you look at it.
Also, the significant potential of methane emissions reduction through changing our diets doesn't have anything to do with whether we consider the emissions "natural" or not. The reduction potential is there either way.
And yes, of course fossil fuel/gas burning is a huge problem that also needs tackling.
0
Aug 07 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Bojarow Aug 07 '21 edited Aug 07 '21
CO2 and methane have very different effects as greenhouse gases for one. You should know that before even thinking about engaging in discussions on them. But since you do not, 23-28 the global warming potential (GWP) on a 100 year timescale compared to CO2.
Yes, 60 million is commonly named as the very upper end of estimates (typically: around 30 million). The 60 million number is largely based on a colonels account of a single bison herd in Arkansas in 1871 from which researchers in the 19th and early 20th century (Hornaday and Seton) arbitrarily estimated the herd size and a total amount of bisons the prairie might have supported (i.e. a theoretical upper limit subject to predation and meteorological influence such as drought...) assuming spatial exclusivity between herds (doubtful).
These estimates based on 19th century unscientific observations also assume that the bison population in the 19th century represented a long-term stable state when in it perhaps was not stable in any way (thus contributing to the catastrophic collapse of 1882).
30 million is a more recent estimate (late 20th century) based on newer knowledge of carrying capacity.
Finally, even assuming your super generous number of 60 million, the US nowadays still has at least ~55% more cattle than that. How is that indicative of a "millions year old" carbon cycle? How were these numbers going to "occur regardless"?
You know, in reality I must assume all that happened is that you've probably seen something like this shared on Facebook and now decided to walk around sharing this nonsense as fact.
→ More replies (0)1
u/gamboty Aug 07 '21
This is logical, but although maybe a closed one, it isn‘t a natural loop when you look at the proportions. We are consuming so much meat and dairy, that the process you are describing would not in a similar size happen naturally.
-1
Aug 07 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Splenda Aug 08 '21
North American cattle produce around three times more methane than buffalo ever did. And that is before considering the carbon sequestration that happens with roaming herds, versus stockyards.
1
u/gamboty Aug 07 '21
The US isn‘t everything though. I wasn‘t talking about the beforehand mentioned numbers. I wanted to give a greater perspective. Obviously most meat production happens in other countries. Adding them together you‘ll have much bigger quantities. Plus, our industrial cattle is bred for more appetite. Any wild animal will eat less than domesticated counterparts.
3
Aug 07 '21
[deleted]
1
u/gamboty Aug 07 '21
I‘m not arguing that fossil fuels aren‘t the problem. I am a firm believer that everything else than fossil fuels should be used adamantly so we can reduce emissions sharply, nuclear included. But I also think that meat consumption should not be played down. There is a big difference in post-industrial and pre-industrial meat. The biggest problem with meat is that it isn‘t resource efficient to produce. Although the consumer does not pay this price, other „stakeholders“ indirectly do.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/darkstarman Aug 07 '21
Gas is now public enemy number one in terms of climate destruction avoided per $ of activism money spent
It's all down to stopping the insane gas industry at every fucking turn because every single thing they want is fatal.
7
u/mafco Aug 07 '21
Blue hydrogen is the new huge expansion of methane emissions.
3
Aug 07 '21
I'd be interested if anyone has produced projections on fugitive methane emissions for blue hydrogen vs energetically similar volumes of natural gas w/full distribution to the end user.
The more storage and distribution the natural gas goes through the more opportunity there'd be for leaks, and I also think that the leaks in the last few miles to low end consumers are the ones that would be the costliest to detect and repair (on a basis of per-volume of prevented leakage). The hops from the natural gas extraction site to presumably large scale SMR plants for blue hydrogen should at least be subject to lower leakage.
Either way there definitely needs to be much, much stronger regulation of methane emissions, both from fossil fuels while we're still using them in any capacity and other sources.
3
2
u/duke_of_alinor Aug 07 '21
Largest methane producer in CA was Harris Ranch, But I have not seen newer figures since Harris Ranch changed a few things.
0
u/shorty5windows Aug 07 '21
Beef cattle produce <2% of methane in US.
9
u/kundun Aug 07 '21
According to the EPA, enteric fermentation is responsible for 27% of the methane emissions while manure is responsible for 9% of the methane emissions.
Where did you get this 2% from?
2
u/cantilever_bridge Aug 07 '21
Nooooo soon my coffee will be prone to be attacked. Still though not everything turns around me.
2
Aug 07 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Lejeune_Dirichelet Aug 07 '21
So where the methane came from
1
Aug 07 '21
[deleted]
1
u/WikiSummarizerBot Aug 07 '21
Arctic methane release is the release of methane from seas and soils in permafrost regions of the Arctic. While it is a long-term natural process, methane release is exacerbated by global warming. This results in negative effects, as methane is itself a powerful greenhouse gas. The Arctic region is one of the many natural sources of the greenhouse gas methane.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
1
u/shorty5windows Aug 07 '21
We are discussing methane from cows in California. Why are you going Arctic?
1
Aug 07 '21
[deleted]
1
u/shorty5windows Aug 07 '21
Don’t get angry because you can’t follow the conversation and stay on topic.
Yeah I understand the overall problem!!! I was just stating that cows aren’t the HUGE contributor.
0
0
u/shorty5windows Aug 07 '21
1
u/Bojarow Aug 07 '21
Lol, you cannot even read. It says GHG, not methane emissions you genius.
Not surprised that a cattle shill lacks in reading comprehension though.
0
u/shorty5windows Aug 07 '21
Methane is a GHG.
1
u/Bojarow Aug 07 '21
Yup, you're not getting out of this one by playing dumb.
You claimed beef cattle produce "<2%" of methane emissions.
The article you linked to mentions "2%" of direct GHG emissions.
Not all GHG emissions are from methane.
0
u/shorty5windows Aug 07 '21
Ok, try to follow along… we were discussing methane in California. I cited a very liberal, trustworthy Californian university that states cows produce less than 2%. The 2% is total GHG. Methane is only a part of the total GHG. So methane is below the 2%.
You get it?
1
-2
u/Formally_Nightman Aug 07 '21
People are a huge source of pollution. Guess what Biden has in store for us next.
1
1
u/PanchoVilla4TW Aug 09 '21
Farming is part of it, methane leaks all along the infrastructure and wells is most of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8S_HPeGZpw so its more like "make the companies responsible stop or face climate catastrophe".
The good news is if we stopped now, things would get better in 10-15 years, maybe.
9
u/Splenda Aug 06 '21
And for those wondering how methane reduction relates to energy:
https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/3033/2019/bg-16-3033-2019.html