6 ms·

I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of c

I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring? My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amount of methane in the atmosphere, it would only be a one-time effect equivalent to not emitting a certain amount of CO2 once. In the long run, the amount of net carbon added to or removed from the carbon cycle, for example from fossil reservoirs, is the only thing that really matters.

piva00 3y ago
It reacts with ozone to decompose into carbon dioxide, so methane not only has a much higher short-lived effect but later turns into CO2.
etrautmann 3y ago
That’s exactly why it’s also worth targeting. Its short residence time means that addressing methane emissions could make a meaningful impact. It’s not zero sum - we should address the low hanging fruit of methane emissions while also decarbonizing.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  You can also repurpose oil and gas industry people and equipment as part of this work (the Inflation Reduction Act appropriated funds for this). This provides a graceful rolloff for these folks and the industry as oil for energy is sunset. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/through-president-bidens-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-24-states-set-begin-plugging https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/through-president-bidens-b... https://www.energy.gov/fecm/funding-notice-ira-mitigating-emissions-marginal-conventional-wells https://www.energy.gov/fecm/funding-notice-ira-mitigating-em... https://www.propublica.org/article/the-rising-cost-of-the-oil-industrys-slow-death https://www.propublica.org/article/the-rising-cost-of-the-oi... (US centric, but the model transfers)
- bilsbie 3y ago
  Wouldn’t that just embolden folks to emit more co2?
  - burkaman 3y ago
    It might if companies sell carbon credits based on methane reduction, but that's an argument against the credits not against the actual mitigation action.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  There is a project to get transcontinental ships to add emitters of FeCl3 to their exhaust stacks, to catalyze oxidation of methane. It seems to be getting enthusiastic uptake from shipowners for reasons unknown to me. 10,000 ships emitting 100kg a day would be enough to bring atmospheric methane in line. (Fe seeded to the ocean surface is negligible. This is not a thing to trigger algae production.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane_removal
trompetenaccoun 3y ago
That's a misunderstanding. The methane stays in the atmosphere a few years until it reacts with oxygen to CO2. So first you have the multiple times worse effect of CH4 and then you're left with CO2, which is still a greenhouse gas. You're left with CO2 either way, even when you burn the methane. That's why it's so bad. And that's why actually when companies or politicians tell you about "clean" gas, it's very misleading. There is significant leakage in production, transport and storage, before the gas even reaches a consumer.
- codeflo 3y ago
  Sure, but the question is still whether that carbon came from a fossil source or was part of the cycle to begin with. Let's say a cow eats grass, produces methane, the methane gets converted into CO2, the grass grows back. No net increase in CO2. If, on the other hand, the methane came from natural gas, you have permanently added carbon to the cycle.
  - staunton 3y ago
    The "short-term" effect on warming is quite severe and very relevant. Also, while carbon atoms are conserved, methane is not. You can make a lot of methane from biomass without needing to absorb methane to produce the biomass.
  - leetcodesucks 3y ago
    [dead]
  - burkaman 3y ago
    > No net increase in CO2. Accelerating the "natural" cycle is bad even if there is no net increase. A massive forest fire technically doesn't cause any net increase in CO2, but releasing that much CO2 at once causes a lot of problems that wouldn't happen if the same amount were released over hundreds of years as those trees died and decayed. I'm sure some people would argue that burning oil and gas isn't a net increase either, because all of that carbon came from the atmosphere originally. The important question is what emissions will make life worse for humanity, and what can be done to avoid them. Avoidable methane emissions cause real-world problems regardless of their source.
daedrdev 3y ago
I think the idea is even in those 12 years, it's way more damaging than CO2 will be. Over 100 years, it is 28 times more damaging than C02, despite not being in the atmosphere for most of that time. Plus doesn't it just break down into CO2 anyway, meaning that methane does its direct damage, plus creates more CO2.
- codeflo 3y ago
  It only creates "more CO2" if the carbon atom wasn't part of the carbon cycle to begin with. That's the case for natural gas, but not for biological sources.
Scarblac 3y ago
The half life is 12 years. So after 24 there's still a quarter, after 36 still an eighth, etc. It's worse than CO2 for a very long time, and then it is CO2.
- codeflo 3y ago
  I just looked it up to be sure. It seems like the mean lifetime is 12 years, which is the figure one uses for calculations. The half life is shorter.
seadan83 3y ago
I think this is like saying "my car payments are $1000 per month for the next 10 years, and my rent is $30 per month for the next 80 years. For my financial health, why am I worried about the car payment when I will be paying rent for the rest of my life and the car payments will be over relatively soon?" The answer to that is the situation might not work out well.. If you have a total lifetime budget of $150k, then those car payments are devastating and you would be bankrupt before those 80 years are over. A kicker, who is to say that methane emissions are one time - and are not themselves increasing and also ongoing? The analogy is not quite exact, since the "rent payment" is more akin to be on the order of 200 years or so (and not just the one human lifetime), but hopefully it makes the point. Last, my understanding of the climate science is that we are very worried about getting through even the next 100 years. To explain, there is a window of time that is almost closed where drastic action can arrest further drastic rates of change in climate (by drastic rates, I'm speaking to 1 to 2 degrees C of warming within that time). It is important therefore we get a handle of this problem sooner rather than later (compare us (humans) "fixing" the methane problem 5 years from now compared to 30 years from now). Also keep in mind there are feedback loops that would be irreversible once triggered.

piva00 3y ago

It reacts with ozone to decompose into carbon dioxide, so methane not only has a much higher short-lived effect but later turns into CO2.

etrautmann 3y ago

That’s exactly why it’s also worth targeting. Its short residence time means that addressing methane emissions could make a meaningful impact. It’s not zero sum - we should address the low hanging fruit of methane emissions while also decarbonizing.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
You can also repurpose oil and gas industry people and equipment as part of this work (the Inflation Reduction Act appropriated funds for this). This provides a graceful rolloff for these folks and the industry as oil for energy is sunset. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/through-president-bidens-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-24-states-set-begin-plugging https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/through-president-bidens-b... https://www.energy.gov/fecm/funding-notice-ira-mitigating-emissions-marginal-conventional-wells https://www.energy.gov/fecm/funding-notice-ira-mitigating-em... https://www.propublica.org/article/the-rising-cost-of-the-oil-industrys-slow-death https://www.propublica.org/article/the-rising-cost-of-the-oi... (US centric, but the model transfers)
bilsbie 3y ago
Wouldn’t that just embolden folks to emit more co2?
- burkaman 3y ago
  It might if companies sell carbon credits based on methane reduction, but that's an argument against the credits not against the actual mitigation action.
angiosperm 3y ago
There is a project to get transcontinental ships to add emitters of FeCl3 to their exhaust stacks, to catalyze oxidation of methane. It seems to be getting enthusiastic uptake from shipowners for reasons unknown to me. 10,000 ships emitting 100kg a day would be enough to bring atmospheric methane in line. (Fe seeded to the ocean surface is negligible. This is not a thing to trigger algae production.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane_removal

trompetenaccoun 3y ago

That's a misunderstanding. The methane stays in the atmosphere a few years until it reacts with oxygen to CO2. So first you have the multiple times worse effect of CH4 and then you're left with CO2, which is still a greenhouse gas. You're left with CO2 either way, even when you burn the methane. That's why it's so bad. And that's why actually when companies or politicians tell you about "clean" gas, it's very misleading. There is significant leakage in production, transport and storage, before the gas even reaches a consumer.

codeflo 3y ago
Sure, but the question is still whether that carbon came from a fossil source or was part of the cycle to begin with. Let's say a cow eats grass, produces methane, the methane gets converted into CO2, the grass grows back. No net increase in CO2. If, on the other hand, the methane came from natural gas, you have permanently added carbon to the cycle.
- staunton 3y ago
  The "short-term" effect on warming is quite severe and very relevant. Also, while carbon atoms are conserved, methane is not. You can make a lot of methane from biomass without needing to absorb methane to produce the biomass.
- leetcodesucks 3y ago
  [dead]
- burkaman 3y ago
  > No net increase in CO2. Accelerating the "natural" cycle is bad even if there is no net increase. A massive forest fire technically doesn't cause any net increase in CO2, but releasing that much CO2 at once causes a lot of problems that wouldn't happen if the same amount were released over hundreds of years as those trees died and decayed. I'm sure some people would argue that burning oil and gas isn't a net increase either, because all of that carbon came from the atmosphere originally. The important question is what emissions will make life worse for humanity, and what can be done to avoid them. Avoidable methane emissions cause real-world problems regardless of their source.

daedrdev 3y ago

I think the idea is even in those 12 years, it's way more damaging than CO2 will be. Over 100 years, it is 28 times more damaging than C02, despite not being in the atmosphere for most of that time. Plus doesn't it just break down into CO2 anyway, meaning that methane does its direct damage, plus creates more CO2.

codeflo 3y ago
It only creates "more CO2" if the carbon atom wasn't part of the carbon cycle to begin with. That's the case for natural gas, but not for biological sources.

Scarblac 3y ago

The half life is 12 years. So after 24 there's still a quarter, after 36 still an eighth, etc. It's worse than CO2 for a very long time, and then it is CO2.

codeflo 3y ago
I just looked it up to be sure. It seems like the mean lifetime is 12 years, which is the figure one uses for calculations. The half life is shorter.

seadan83 3y ago

I think this is like saying "my car payments are $1000 per month for the next 10 years, and my rent is $30 per month for the next 80 years. For my financial health, why am I worried about the car payment when I will be paying rent for the rest of my life and the car payments will be over relatively soon?" The answer to that is the situation might not work out well.. If you have a total lifetime budget of $150k, then those car payments are devastating and you would be bankrupt before those 80 years are over. A kicker, who is to say that methane emissions are one time - and are not themselves increasing and also ongoing? The analogy is not quite exact, since the "rent payment" is more akin to be on the order of 200 years or so (and not just the one human lifetime), but hopefully it makes the point. Last, my understanding of the climate science is that we are very worried about getting through even the next 100 years. To explain, there is a window of time that is almost closed where drastic action can arrest further drastic rates of change in climate (by drastic rates, I'm speaking to 1 to 2 degrees C of warming within that time). It is important therefore we get a handle of this problem sooner rather than later (compare us (humans) "fixing" the methane problem 5 years from now compared to 30 years from now). Also keep in mind there are feedback loops that would be irreversible once triggered.