Methane worse than CO2

[Skull Pilot]

With all the hoopla about CO2 and the pending disastrous for the economy legislation that will be crammed down our throats to curb CO2 emissions, it seems we are ignoring a larger more easily remedied piece of the puzzle.

Robert Watson And Mohamed El-Ashry:A Fast, Cheap Way to Cool the Planet - WSJ.com

This month's Copenhagen talks focused on the leading climate change culprit: carbon dioxide. But reversing global temperature increases by reducing carbon emissions will take many decades, if not centuries. Even if the largest cuts in CO2 contemplated in Copenhagen are implemented, it simply will not reverse the melting of ice already occurring in the most sensitive areas, including the rapid disappearance of glaciers in Tibet, the Arctic and Latin America.

So what can we do to effectively buffer global warming? The most obvious strategy is to make an all-out effort to reduce emissions of methane.

Sometimes called the "other greenhouse gas," methane is responsible for 75% as much warming as carbon dioxide measured over any given 20 years. Unlike carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, methane lasts only a decade but packs a powerful punch while it's there.

Methane's short life makes it especially interesting in the short run, given the pace of climate change. If we need to suppress temperature quickly in order to preserve glaciers, reducing methane can make an immediate impact. Compared to the massive requirements necessary to reduce CO2, cutting methane requires only modest investment. Where we stop methane emissions, cooling follows within a decade, not centuries. That could make the difference for many fragile systems on the brink.

Yet global discussions about climate and policies to date have not focused on methane. Methane is formally in the "basket" of six gases targeted by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. But its value is counted as if it has the same lifetime as carbon dioxide.

This ignores its much larger, near-term potential. As a result, methane represents only about 15% of the projects under the Kyoto Protocol's emissions offset program. And it is not a major focus of climate protection programs in any nation.

This is huge missed opportunity, and not just for the climate. Methane also forms ozone, the smog that severely damages food crops and kills tens of thousands each year by worsening asthma, emphysema and other respiratory diseases

Captured methane gas can be used as a clean energy source, contributing to energy security and diversification as well as reducing damaging black carbon (soot) and CO2 emissions. Solving the methane problem will lead to a higher quality of life by cleaning up city and agricultural wastes and odors, and curbing air pollution from dirty stoves and local industries. It will also create local jobs in construction and operation of methane-abating equipment.

Methane comes from a variety of sources: landfills, sewage streams, coal mines, oil and gas drilling operations, agricultural wastes, and cattle farms. For most of these sources, relatively cheap "end of pipe" technologies are available to collect methane and convert it to useful energy rather than venting it to the atmosphere.

These technologies include drilling into coal seams before mining to release and collect methane (this also reduces the risk of mine explosions, which kill hundreds of miners per year); depositing manure into "biogas" digesting tanks where pipes collect methane produced from decomposition; and covering and lining open landfills, shunting methane into a collection pipe.

In most cases, the collected methane can be used to run a village- or city-scale power plant. The Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate that as much as 40% of the world's projected methane could be reduced at less than $60 dollars per ton of carbon equivalent. Some methane projects even have "negative" cost, as the value of the captured gas exceeds the investment.

Experience has shown that even with modest incentives, methane projects, which are typically small scale, can move fast. Timberline Energy, a U.S. company, reports an expected construction time of six to eight months for landfill gas projects once financing is secured. And the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism estimates that setting up biogas projects can take as little as five months. Hundreds of shovel-ready projects around the world are ready to go, but are stalled because of uncertainty over future carbon rules.

This is why on Dec. 11, along with a distinguished group of colleagues from the scientific and financial communities, we proposed the creation of a Global Methane Fund to address the specific measures needed to get methane projects off the ground now. This includes a guaranteed price floor for methane projects to allay uncertainty over future carbon prices.

Funded by governments and private foundations, a Global Methane Fund with only $100 million to $200 million could leverage tens of billions of dollars for other projects, which will have a quick and measurable cooling effect in the Arctic and elsewhere. Scientific studies, such as the EPA's June 2006 report, "Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases," conservatively indicate that we could eliminate 1.3 gigatons of annual CO2 equivalent emissions—that's half the U.S. power industry's emissions—just by targeting landfills, coal mines, and oil and gas leaks.

Such a fund would benefit melting glaciers in the Arctic, and in the Andean and Himalayan mountains. And it would demonstrate to the world that we can do something to quickly slow climate change.

We need to get moving to cool the planet's temperature. Methane is the most effective place for us to start.

Any guesses a to why our oh so smart government is ignoring this option?

The answer is simple.

Methane reduction can be done quickly cheaply and actually create a profit for private citizens while having a measurable effect on climate in the short run where as CO2 legislation requires higher taxes and more government agencies to exert more controls on the population and would take many decades of higher taxes and government control to see any results..

 

[Sodafin]

Any guesses a to why our oh so smart government is ignoring this option?

The answer is simple.

You spoiled an otherwise really interesting thread with this little burst of laughable paranoia at the end.

Honestly - you really do believe your scheming, evil government is bent on destroying your life, don't you?

In the real world, a lot is being done to reduce methane emissions - to the extent that I know of at least one government who have researched ways of stopping farm animals from farting. And that is also a partial answer to your question - a lot of methane is released by animals, and at the moment we know of no way of stopping that.

I know the use of industrial methane is under review here in Europe because of climate change, as I imagine it is in the US, too, although in general the US seems to be around 10 - 15 years behind on this.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Any guesses a to why our oh so smart government is ignoring this option?

The answer is simple.

You spoiled an otherwise really interesting thread with this little burst of laughable paranoia at the end.

Honestly - you really do believe your scheming, evil government is bent on destroying your life, don't you?

In the real world, a lot is being done to reduce methane emissions - to the extent that I know of at least one government who have researched ways of stopping farm animals from farting. And that is also a partial answer to your question - a lot of methane is released by animals, and at the moment we know of no way of stopping that.

I know the use of industrial methane is under review here in Europe because of climate change, as I imagine it is in the US, too, although in general the US seems to be around 10 - 15 years behind on this.

You may trust your government and give your jug eared horse faced future king blow jobs but I have absolutely no faith in our politicians or our government to do anything right.

The answer is not more government but less.

but the so called progressives don't think that way their answer is more government more taxes and less freedom

 

[Sodafin]

There is a huge difference between not believing everything a government does or not having blind faith in them - and believing they are so stupid that a 16 year old high school drop out knows more about climate change than the government does. (Example only - I don't mean you!) That's insane.

Like the government or hate them, they have access to genuinely expert advice, and most governments utilise that expertise.

What you might do is look at what other governments are doing around the world, and you'll find most are also pursuing CO2 policy first and most, with methane policy active, but definitely a secondary consideration.

Why is that?

btw, I have no idea why you see climate change as a liberal/conservative issue - it isn't.

 

[Si modo]

Any guesses a to why our oh so smart government is ignoring this option?

The answer is simple.

You spoiled an otherwise really interesting thread with this little burst of laughable paranoia at the end.

Honestly - you really do believe your scheming, evil government is bent on destroying your life, don't you?

In the real world, a lot is being done to reduce methane emissions - to the extent that I know of at least one government who have researched ways of stopping farm animals from farting. And that is also a partial answer to your question - a lot of methane is released by animals, and at the moment we know of no way of stopping that.

I know the use of industrial methane is under review here in Europe because of climate change, as I imagine it is in the US, too, although in general the US seems to be around 10 - 15 years behind on this.

It has nothing to do with that. The CO2 scare and the proposed policy are brilliant marketing for those who are in the 'carbon' business.

Without such CO2 policy, there is no chance to make a penny.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is a huge difference between not believing everything a government does or not having blind faith in them - and believing they are so stupid that a 16 year old high school drop out knows more about climate change than the government does. (Example only - I don't mean you!) That's insane.

Like the government or hate them, they have access to genuinely expert advice, and most governments utilise that expertise.

What you might do is look at what other governments are doing around the world, and you'll find most are also pursuing CO2 policy first and most, with methane policy active, but definitely a secondary consideration.

Why is that?

btw, I have no idea why you see climate change as a liberal/conservative issue - it isn't.

The enactment of laws and taxes for climate change is certainly a political issue.

And you know as well as I that the government will only use such "expert" advice that supports their agenda at the moment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Any guesses a to why our oh so smart government is ignoring this option?

The answer is simple.

You spoiled an otherwise really interesting thread with this little burst of laughable paranoia at the end.

Honestly - you really do believe your scheming, evil government is bent on destroying your life, don't you?

In the real world, a lot is being done to reduce methane emissions - to the extent that I know of at least one government who have researched ways of stopping farm animals from farting. And that is also a partial answer to your question - a lot of methane is released by animals, and at the moment we know of no way of stopping that.

I know the use of industrial methane is under review here in Europe because of climate change, as I imagine it is in the US, too, although in general the US seems to be around 10 - 15 years behind on this.

It has nothing to do with that. The CO2 scare and the proposed policy are brilliant marketing for those who are in the 'carbon' business.

Without such CO2 policy, there is no chance to make a penny.

You get it.

The simpler, least expensive more effective strategy is being ignored to concentrate on the most expensive, least efficient strategy because the latter will fatten government coffers and corrupt politicians wallets more than the former.

 

[Sodafin]

Without such CO2 policy, there is no chance to make a penny.

More paranoia.

As opposed to the coal and nuclear industries, of course. Because they employ lobbyists as well, don't they? Would you care to tell us how much coal spent on lobbying last year, Si Modo?

A lot of companies around the world will make a lot of money and create a lot of jobs building and exporting solar, wind and osmosis technologies - there is no question about that. They are already are.

They will also do so largely without any government support beyond start-up funding.

The only question is - will the US miss out on this industry entirely, and instead sits around whining about government?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Without such CO2 policy, there is no chance to make a penny.

More paranoia.

As opposed to the coal and nuclear industries, of course. Because they employ lobbyists as well, don't they? Would you care to tell us how much coal spent on lobbying last year, Si Modo?

A lot of companies around the world will make a lot of money and create a lot of jobs building and exporting solar, wind and osmosis technologies - there is no question about that. They are already are.

They will also do so largely without any government support beyond start-up funding.

The only question is - will the US miss out on this industry entirely, and instead sits around whining about government?

The US has no nuclear industry does it? The Democrats have seen to that.

And our government is making it nearly impossible to start new technology ventures here.

As I have said before government needs to get out of the way and then we'll see some major improvements in the USA's ability to compete in the global energy market

 

[Sodafin]

The enactment of laws and taxes for climate change is certainly a political issue.

And you know as well as I that the government will only use such "expert" advice that supports their agenda at the moment.

No, it is not a political issue - at least, it shouldn't be. It is - and should be - a science issue.

And the proof of this is that so many conservative politicians and conservative parties completely reject your political view of climate change - because they have actually looked at the science objectively, and chosen what they think is best for the country and party.

How else do you explain the policies of Angela Merkel, Sakorzy, or the UK Conservative Party?

 

[Sodafin]

The US has no nuclear industry does it? The Democrats have seen to that.

With all due respect, that is a very childish response.

Try addressing the topic sensibly.

 

[Si modo]

Without such CO2 policy, there is no chance to make a penny.

More paranoia.

As opposed to the coal and nuclear industries, of course. Because they employ lobbyists as well, don't they? Would you care to tell us how much coal spent on lobbying last year, Si Modo?

A lot of companies around the world will make a lot of money and create a lot of jobs building and exporting solar, wind and osmosis technologies - there is no question about that. They are already are.

They will also do so largely without any government support beyond start-up funding.

The only question is - will the US miss out on this industry entirely, and instead sits around whining about government?

The only question?

Not quite.

I am no fan of policy which is not based on facts. CO2 policy is not based on science as the science is not at such a state where anything definitive can be said one way or the other. Thus, such policy is artificial. Then, any rational observer must ask to what end is this artificial policy?

Considering the investors in the 'carbon' business, money is a good answer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The US has no nuclear industry does it? The Democrats have seen to that.

With all due respect, that is a very childish response.

Try addressing the topic sensibly.

It's a simple fact we have abandoned nuclear power.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The enactment of laws and taxes for climate change is certainly a political issue.

And you know as well as I that the government will only use such "expert" advice that supports their agenda at the moment.

No, it is not a political issue - at least, it shouldn't be. It is - and should be - a science issue.

And the proof of this is that so many conservative politicians and conservative parties completely reject your political view of climate change - because they have actually looked at the science objectively, and chosen what they think is best for the country and party.

How else do you explain the policies of Angela Merkel, Sakorzy, or the UK Conservative Party?

The "science" is not settles but it is unwise to ignore the political aspect of climate change.

Whether it should or should not be political is a moot point, at least for now, because it is very political.

 

[Sodafin]

.

I am no fan of policy which is not based on facts. CO2 policy is not based on science as the science is not at such a state where anything definitive can be said one way or the other. Thus, such policy is artificial. Then, any rational observer must ask to what end is this artificial policy?

Much of the science is definitive - at least to the extent that we know WHAT is happening, if not definitive as to WHY it is happening, or what that might mean 100 years down the track.

Which leaves us 2 solutions - either act now and replace outmoded technologies with new ones - or do nothing and hope for the best.

It's no surprise to me that most countries in developed countries - including those with conservative governments - choose the former.

As for money - perhaps you can tell us how many lobbyists are employed by the coal and nuclear industries, and at what cost?

Sure there is money to be made in Green Technologies, and sure there will be some thieves in the industry - but let's not pretend coal and nuclear have never tried to suck money out of government.

 

[Si modo]

.

I am no fan of policy which is not based on facts. CO2 policy is not based on science as the science is not at such a state where anything definitive can be said one way or the other. Thus, such policy is artificial. Then, any rational observer must ask to what end is this artificial policy?

Much of the science is definitive - at least to the extent that we know WHAT is happening, if not definitive as to WHY it is happening, or what that might mean 100 years down the track.

Which leaves us 2 solutions - either act now and replace outmoded technologies with new ones - or do nothing and hope for the best. ....

And, as acting has as much chance of effecting any change as it does at not effecting any change, it is beyond a silly policy.

It is artificial. To what end, then?

You tell me.

 

[Sodafin]

How else do you explain the policies of Angela Merkel, Sakorzy, or the UK Conservative Party?

The "science" is not settles but it is unwise to ignore the political aspect of climate change.

Whether it should or should not be political is a moot point, at least for now, because it is very political.

You didn't answer my point as to why most conservative parties have adopted aggressive climate change policies.

Certainly your stance on this issue is political - but that doesn't mean it is political for everyone else.

Again - why do we see conservatives wanting to tackle climate change if it's purely a political issue?

 

[Si modo]

The enactment of laws and taxes for climate change is certainly a political issue.

And you know as well as I that the government will only use such "expert" advice that supports their agenda at the moment.

No, it is not a political issue - at least, it shouldn't be. It is - and should be - a science issue.

And the proof of this is that so many conservative politicians and conservative parties completely reject your political view of climate change - because they have actually looked at the science objectively, and chosen what they think is best for the country and party.

How else do you explain the policies of Angela Merkel, Sakorzy, or the UK Conservative Party?

I agree; it should be a science issue.

As such, the state of the science does not justify any policy.

 

[Sodafin]

I agree; it should be a science issue.

As such, the state of the science does not justify any policy.

Fair enough - and I do take your point.

But then why do you think it is that so many conservative politicians and parties around the world took a 180 turn with their policy in around the year 1999-2000, and now have strong policies to tackle climate change?

Consider not just France, the UK, Germany, but Japan, Denmark, Korea...even the current government in Kenya. The list goes on and on.

 

[Si modo]

I agree; it should be a science issue.

As such, the state of the science does not justify any policy.

Fair enough - and I do take your point.

But then why do you think it is that so many conservative politicians and parties around the world took a 180 turn with their policy in around the year 1999-2000, and now have strong policies to tackle climate change?

Consider not just France, the UK, Germany, but Japan, Denmark, Korea...even the current government in Kenya. The list goes on and on.

Money.