Have we lost control of METHANE gas?

[@andiralosh2173]

The fact that methane that could be industrially burned is instead left to be a WORSE greenhouse gas, while more is drilled for is beyond upsetting. It will always be more profitable to mine and destroy unregulated resources

[@masterheke7339]

overlooking the epic level live stock fart.

[@daispy101]

Those resources are regulated. But it matters who is in charge of the regulators and elections have consequences.

[@andiralosh2173]

@@daispy101 to an extent. If all candidates are "pro business" then it's more a matter of how much pollution we get, thus the problem. There might be candidates around the world running on ecologically sustainable measures, but not that I know of in the US. Choices are bad or worse 🙃

[@CDWCAULDRON]

Natural Methane hydrate is this issue and no humans are not in control

[@andiralosh2173]

@@CDWCAULDRON what point are you making?

[@ochlokrat]

I admire, how you always manage to tightrope all these gloomy news in a very entertaining, funny, yet still professional and thought provoking manner! Seems to be a British quality, like shops, who were bombed during air raids in WW2, and put out signs the next day like 'even more open today!". Humour seems to be the best strategy to not succumb to all the bad news surrounding us.

[@leonstenutz6003]

❤❤❤❤

[@leonardkellum6984]

Even more concerned about warmongering politicians who are elitist and bit insane imo

[@JonDecker]

Well, it doesn't help the half of the US is speckled with abandoned and forgotten oil and gas wells leaking unmeasured methane into the atmosphere.

[@TheMinimumPC]

Like love the little mom and pop oil wells, they’re the backbone of the American economy

[@JonDecker]

@@TheMinimumPC I don't know if they're mom-and-pop oil wells, but over the past 100 years, companies have put in wells and then realized it was more expensive to fill them in and cap them properly than to just walk away and drill a new one five mile down the road. Appalachia is full of them.

[@gloriamadaffari5404]

But we all love to use the methane producing fuel for our creature comforts. What a travesty!

[@MandosaWright]

same goes for Alberta, Canada... that place is a catastrophe when it comes to abandoned or orphaned gas wells, they even have a corporate fund that oil & gas corporations are supposed to be paying into, to reclaim well and clean up after extraction, but it isn't paid into well enough, and now taxpayers foot the bill

[@JonDecker]

@@MandosaWright I feel like the "Great Stuff" brand could pull some major PR here by developing a well filler foam

[@Andriastravels]

A mere 17% increase in Methane emissions over the last 30 years is impossibly low, a cover up. This is common sense. The increase in emissions since the 1990's due to expansion of cattle farming, natural gas extraction, processing and delivery, human waste, and landfills would far exceed a 17% increase. Fracking alone is a huge new source of fugitive Methane emissions.

[@CRneu]

It's based on outdated collection methodology. Over the last year or two, we've been "amazed" to find new sources of methane all over the place, along with the amounts we were already tracking being woefully underreported. I used to be heavily involved in ranching/cattle and i can tell you right now they're vastly underreporting all their information and there's a legit effort to keep that data from ever being properly tracked/reported. US universities have been caught, looking at you UC davis, working with the cattle industry to fudge numbers. The industry, just a few months ago, got caught grossly misrepresenting research to the point that the researcher had to come out and say something about it. All our methane tracking is at least 25% underreported, easily. That's just what we know about.

[@stigsrnning6459]

Search tip: Trees reveal climate surprise: Microbes living in bark remove methane from the atmosphere

[@tjarlzquoll9835]

@@CRneudamn right you are! It’s no coincidence that our local soil carbon sequestration project was conducted on a Murdoch owned cattle property!

[@amnoahwielwabbit3837]

No mention of the Man Made Methane Gas release millions of Tonnes …………. North Stream 2 ! How convenient ! None of the Great Environmentalist said a word 🤫 shhhh . Truly Amazing !

[@rondavison8475]

fracking is a 10x'r...

[@thomasross4921]

Thank you so much for including fugitive emissions. I've heard that only 5% methane emissions from leaks in the piping system cancels out all of methane's "clean burning" advantages, and that's basically where we are at when it comes to leaks, making natural gas a total clean energy mirage.

[@tristanridley1601]

When fugitive emissions are taken in to account, it's somehow worse than coal. Unbelievable.

[@elephantintheroom5678]

There may be people smarter than you, Dave, but you're a smarter communicator. And the world needs communicators, especially about climate change!

[@piotrwojdelko1150]

correct he can explain difficult things in an easy way

[@tarstarkusz]

No he isn't. He's a propagandist.

[@hungrydna]

@@tarstarkuszelaborate

[@duncanidaho9153]

@@tarstarkusz At least you're immune to something.

[@tarstarkusz]

@@hungrydna He would tell you himself. Propaganda has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of falsehood of a claim. A lot of propaganda has absolutely no information at all. Norman Rockwell paintings are a perfect example of that.

[@williamdeltufo7163]

My day job is working as a biochar developer for a rewilding initiative in Sussex England. I’m experimenting with developing low emission systems for turning (otherwise left to rot) byproduct biomass into biochar carbon. Then adding it into and onto the soil inoculated with mycorrhizal sporulates to attempt an accelerated rewilding of previously impoverished post industrial land. Experimental tests are so far encouraging enough to suggest a far faster increase in soil biomass carbon sequestration over and above the biochar carbon being added. If this could be implemented broadly on small scale then it would become possible to draw down millions of tonnes of carbon from the carbon cycle and lock it back into the soil and out of the atmosphere. At the same time as dramatically improving soil fertility, negating the need for petrochemical fertilisers and helping to bring back habitat and biodiversity. I’m working hard at it to see if it will help. Thinking ‘terra preta’ wise, we may have lost connection to nature, to spirit and to ancient technologies however it is all possible to regain if we can be brave and face uncomfortable truths. Changing our habits and daring to take risks, be bold and strive to want less material possessions. Wildroots Wood.

[@jaykanta4326]

Nice flex. You're walking the walk.

[@vjross2480]

Happy to be working, eating. and living in a safe dwelling. The water is potable, the air is excellent. I'm glad you have a project. You can't save the earth. But you can do your thing while watching the Western Industrial civilization crumble. Mutual aid coming your way.

[@Garrison169]

Have fun rearranging the deck chairs. What is the orchestra playing?

[@jaykanta4326]

@@Garrison169 Ummm, he's actually working towards good things. What's with the snark?

[@breathonthewind1070]

Over 10 years ago I had an "argument" online with a "engineer" who followed the then popular thinking that natural gas was our solution away from burning coal and so a solution for CO2 global warming. My point was other research that clarified that if only 3% of the natural gas pumped from place to place around the US leaked than the emissions of methane would make the use of natural gas more problematic than using coal. Actual figures suggested that the number was closer to a 12% leakage from pipelines. Now on top of this I have seen numbers that suggest we only are able to collect 20 to 30% of the natural gas produced from fracking and there are large areas above natural gas fracking fields satalites have shown with increased natural gas emissions.

[@timeenoughforart]

Those stories were all over the news. I bet the vast majority still believe it. Come to think of it I do believe coal is worse than natural gas. What a scary thought. It does seem like our fixes keep making more problems than they solve. I have already heard we need to remove wet lands because they produce methane.

[@mv80401]

We're all run into the "engineers", there's a stratum of retired white men flooding board with their often outdated (but once real) expertise. They largely overlap with the Nuclear fanboys. The reason for their opinions is typically rooted in the right wing propaganda they absorb through Fox and WSJ. And they're sooo much smarter than all those climate dupes...

[@jazziejim]

Damn right! Thank you for the valuable info!

[@SuperS05]

Do note that natural gas is generally considered an unwanted byproduct of the oil industry. They make some money on it, but it's not their cash cow like heavier hydrocarbons. Yes I know there's dedicated gas fields and fracking etc, but monetary value is still low. So low, that your 12% figure whether accurate or not really isn't economical to repair without environmental laws requiring it. (one of the few areas where I can support stronger regulations) So, by far, the biggest emitters of methane by the oil industry is in warm countries without environmental regulations. This is where you're lucky if they even attempt to flare off the methane. Where I live leaks are treated very seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage is is sub 1% by volume, but I don't have much proof to back that up.

[@CRneu]

Also remember that all these "green" solutions are not really green. They're less harmful than _____. So LNG is "less harmful" than burning diesel or petrol but it is in no way "green". Calling a LNG garbage truck a "green solution" is laughably incorrect. This is just greenwashing by the industry to get people on board with another one of their products.

[@trailsandsails2722]

I am now retired but worked as a field researcher for universities and for the Fed Gov on greenhouse gas budgets since the mid 80's. Quantifying the methane budget is a bit more tricky than co2 as it's heavily dependent on ground hydrology -bacteria may generate methane in wetter conditions or feed upon it in dryer condtions. That's one of several complications. Nearer and in the Arctic, ice in permafrost may cap methane rich zones as it has for millenia and predicting that thaw is very difficult- there is literally a degree difference whether that cap exists or not. On both land and sea, data gathering is logisitically a tall challenge so data is sparse and the heterogenity of deposits is very variable. Many thanks for again putting together a great and highly topically presentation on a pressing enviromental issue. Dean

[@Theravadinbuto]

One of the places to start is in changing how we deal with organic waste, including human waste. Our current sewage systems have had very positive impacts on human health, but they are responsible for horrendous losses of critical plant nutrients like phosphorus, which have a finite available supply, and additionally they are significant sources of methane emissions. Aerobic composting at high enough temperatures to sterilize the organics, and recycling as plant nutrients, is critical. However, the big problem is illegal dumping of toxic metals like cadmium into our sewage system. Implementing continuous monitoring of sewage flows for metals and toxic substances is needed, and a large scale program to recycle these organics and their critical plant nutrients.

[@LowreyContractorsUK]

So the problem is what people throw into the sewer is the issue

[@LivingNow678]

we have many 🧩 = problem Who can now, see the all finished puzzle ?

[@Gilotopia]

Isn't organic methane carbon neutral?

[@erikrehtlane4890]

Interesting comments about sewage treatment. I wonder what you think of emerging MicroPoP technology by Eagleridge Innovations?

[@JimHolder-pk2kk]

@@Gilotopia No, methane isn't carbon neutral. Methane is significantly more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. And it's not even carbon neutral from a chemical perspective because each methane molecule has a carbon atom.

[@SonicPhonic]

Our Canadian government gives billions in subsidies, interest-free loans and funding to big-oil through the Export Development Corporation. That totals to about $17 billion in the last 2 or three years.

[@nikitaw1982]

How many billions on the planet don’t have enough energy to turn on a 100wat bulb? U want to have billions continue to watch their kids die cause in 50 years something could happen. PS we split the atom this time last century and we are being vested by CH4 and CO2? Not enough people had decent science teachers or did their home work.

[@mahuba2553]

not much we can do as mere spectators besides i guess driving a big block v8 and try to have some fun while oil is still a thing right?

[@CRneu]

There are a lot of instances in our economies like that. Take beef for example, or dairy. Either of those two receive billions in subsidies to keep prices low. What does this wind up causing? More beef and dairy consumption, which drives up emissions tied to those goods. We're subsidizing environmental harm. There is also a ton of other harm tied to those industries, like predator eradication, loss of native habitat/animals, a bunch of other things. It's basically a short term loan on our long term survivability. We pay $3/gallon now for milk but it really costs us $10/gal in terms of harm/what we'll pay later(basically what a carbon tax tries to fix). That $7/gal is offset by 1) not caring about the harm and 2) subsidization to keep costs low. That's, unfortunately, why going vegan is the clearest and most logical thing for people to do. It eliminates a ton of unnecessary environmental harm. You entirely remove yourself from nearly 20% of our collective emissions/harm. You can't do that with a lot of other aspects of our lives. You can't stop using electricity or transportation but you can reduce the impact of your diet.

[@nikitaw1982]

@ I don’t want to consume pesticides and GM plants.

[@donscott1764]

What's just as bad, Canada's GHGSat has been measuring methane emissions for about 6 years now and has about 6 satellites up monitoring methane emissions all around the globe. Big natural gas producing provinces like Alberta and BC should be using the services of GHGSat (I'm not a shareholder so have no stake in the game other than my kids future) to measure and publish the results of the emissions coming from Canadian sources, in particular by the oil and gas and pipeline industries. Instead, they keep the public in the dark as to what GHGSat is finding, which is very troubling emissions - all around the world. GHGSat makes most of its money selling emissions data to oil and gas companies, who have an obvious interest in keeping their emissions low key. This year GHGSat launched their newest satellite that an also measure CO2 emission, at point source just like they do for methane, which their most recent satellites can identify down a site that is the size of a single building or pump-jack site and pumping station.

[@sharonyoxall7553]

I live in a state doing massive LNG extraction, with resulting massive CO2 (with mythical CCS con job) & massive methane emissions as by-products With no slowing of exploration & granting of leases At the same time, we are all busy sorting our rubbish, returning our cans for deposits & installing solar at a rate of knots. I am very well aware that this ‘window dressing’ & performative greenwashing is pitifully ineffective - any savings are so far below these emissions it’s a joke $$$$$ is all - we are too stupid to deserve to survive

[@4kfootage]

@@sharonyoxall7553 Since we all have been living on a planet that had had major methane and carbon cycles since life began to flourish , effecting massive weather changes that have wiped entire species out, and since our industrialization is also accelerating the climate change that is already going to happen..., we should all focus on how we will live through the cycle and teach the generations that will absolutely live with....and try and live through...massive climate change. one look at a million year old ice core fact record and the illustrations that they offer, you will understand that no cow kiling, automobile dumping, deindustrialization process will keep a cycle ,and the cycles that result from it , from happening again. Climate change has been on the earth way before we climbed out of the last effect. 5 mass extintiction level events and we're still not talking about how to prepare. And no not all of us are doing nothing.... you are here... it's a start

[@laurencetayloruk]

"our collective inability to apply critical thinking to a blindingly obvious rapidly approaching catastrophe" Very succinctly put 😄

[@anomamos9095]

@@laurencetayloruk the only blindly obvious catastrophe is the eventual collapse of civilisation devolving into a state of constant war and starvation for all but the anointed elites who have chosen themselves to rule over the poor ignorant masses who feel for the scam.

[@benjamincornia7311]

Exactly. I was expecting too much out of the species to hope for a better world. We are just dumb animals.

[@geraldc867]

It might be more obvious if there wasn't so much control, restriction, greed, and poorly thought out schemes to rid ourselves of valuable carbon fuels. Much of the science is not settled, and opponents voices are silenced through coercion and shunning from careers, publication, advancement, etc. This is not how science is supposed to happen, so to myself a scientist, none of this appears as science that is anywhere near blindingly obvious. Rather it looks rather cynically manipulative by media manipulators and political ideology.

[@tarstarkusz]

There is no catastrophe.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@tarstarkusz hello Russian bot with zero evidence

[@seattlegrrlie]

My friend, who is a very left liberal and not an idiot did not realize that "natural gas" is methane. They have done a great job with marketing

[@MaxVliet]

Now we're cooking with gas... 😢 (climate town reference?

[@موسى_7]

Don't they teach you this in school? I knew it since high school.

[@petewright4640]

And I expect many on the right of the political spectrum also don't know that methane is natural gas.

[@CRneu]

They've also slammed it down the consumers throat that LNG is "Green" which is a wild thing to think about. LNG is not green in anyway, it's just less harmful than diesel/petrol.

[@chutechi]

Finally the methane bomb is presented. Next: the real consequences of the aerosol masking effect.

[@MalcolmYoung-h4k]

Also worth pointing out that the mere 280ppm of co2 we had, whilst miniscule, was the difference between what we had and an iceball earth.

[@skierpage]

Another way to look at it is the pre-existing greenhouse gas concentrations are why the Earth's climate (15°C average surface temperature) is not like the Moon's (-20 °C or much lower, depending on how you measure it).

[@MalcolmYoung-h4k]

@@skierpage It would be -18c on earth blackbody equilibrium without greenhouse gasses. :)

[@joemccarthy7120]

@@skierpage Malcom’s claim is plainly false since CO2 levels were dramatically higher during earth’s ice ball era than even today. There is lots wrong with the present CO2 narrative.

[@my-rocket]

The Stefan Boltzmann equation is absolutely correct. Its repercussions are absolutely terrifying.

[@mv80401]

@@my-rocket Was curious about your cryptic-to-me remark and asked the all-knowing internet: "The Stefan-Boltzmann equation can be considered "terrifying" because it demonstrates how dramatically the amount of radiated energy from a blackbody increases with even small changes in temperature, due to the "fourth power" relationship, meaning a small temperature increase can lead to a massive jump in radiated energy; essentially, the hotter something gets, the exponentially faster it radiates heat, which can have significant implications in extreme scenarios like stellar physics or nuclear reactions."

[@Neilhuny]

I may have said this before ... This channel, and information like this, *MUST* be made available to school children* near the end of their school education, where nuance matters! Accurate, science based, informed, reasonable, no bias, backed up by good, peer reviewed sources. Perhaps I'm an "educationalist" - my invented word? - and those that receive poor education for whatever reason**, may leave school early, are educated under a possibly biased system (like a religious system), understand the world less well than is good for them, and local or global society. . . . *(5th or L6th, U6th in my day; (year 11 or 12 - never have understood that system, so I might be wrong!) **poor investment, poor country, religious bias*** ***Fundamentalist Christians and Muslim groups seem most culpable; but no doubt any religion is biased.

[@paul756uk2]

Definitely not. They get enough lies and propaganda as it is. Only over educated idiots believe this bs.

[@peterjohn5834]

Great report just terrifying that we may be going into a new era of self regulation of industry by industry I.e themselves. Of course we will be told that this is efficiency.

[@brianarbenz1329]

The solution is: end the Money is Speech judicial doctrine and return the corporation to what it legally is, a licensed entity. Licensed as in, chartered by the public to work in the public interest. We’ll be able to have the decisions about public policy made by the public process, which we are by law in a democracy supposed to have now. As it is, corporations have control over the U.S. Congress and the governments of many nations, and legislating is done to preserve the stock value of the corporation, not the lives and health of the people.

[@PrecisionEBikes]

Nice work!

[@spewtube6238]

I myself have just lost control of methane as I watched this

[@jennyfeatherstone3574]

The answer my friend ...

[@leonstenutz6003]

Gosh ... same here ...😂🎉

[@1155727]

If you can smell it, it's not methane.

[@gzcwnk]

"your chemistry teacher pointed out" LOL, most of the trolls clearly have got little or no education in school.

[@composthis]

It's frustrating to hear people with zero grounding in agricultural science talk about ruminant digestion as if silage corn and feedlots are the only way to raise these animals. Raising ruminants on grazing only, as has been done for the last ten thousand years or so, greatly reduces all these problems and when done in the right way on the appropriate kinds of land is actually a net positive for the ecology of the system - but it reduces the stocking density to a level that only makes enough money to keep farmers farming; it doesn't produce enough profit to pay shareholders, nor does it produce cheap enough meat to keep McDonald's in business. As usual, the problem here isn't agriculture, the problem is capitalism.

[@egghole3]

EXACTLY! Mono-cultures and factory farms break nutrient cycles because they don't rotate their fields. They have to rely on outside feed and fertilizer, which has its own carbon cost, and the runoff from all those industrial farms also fuel algal blooms that render productive coastal waters anoxic. Not to mention the disease issues mono-cultures produce. There's just so much wrong with industrial farming. We gotta remember our roots.

[@EcoKiwiMagazine]

Yeah but as the guys in Cowspiracy (2014) showed, it's just not economically feasible/efficient to force-breed and grow cattle on grassland. To make it worthwhile the price would have to go up hugely. Granted, if we banned feedlot stations (a great idea! Ought never have been developed in the first place) then demand for grassfed meat from cows would skyrocket, and then more trees would be cut down for pasture to provide for that demand, or, more intensive grazing would happen, and we're back to square one.

[@composthis]

@@EcoKiwiMagazine that film had A LOT of problems in its information and really misrepresented a lot of the actual research in this field. Please don't take that film as a reliable source because IT IS NOT. Yes, the cheap meat that keeps the likes of McDonald's in business need to go away and yes, people in places like the USA will need to eat less of these products, and yes farmers will need to be paid more for their products, but those are not impossibilities. You are speaking here as if capitalism is inevitable and the only model for human decisionmaking, and it simply is not. There are SO MANY possible economic models for sustainable agriculture and pretending they don't exist isn't helping anybody. I'm in Canada, where we have a supply management model for many of our agricultural products and that's a great way to create sustainable income for farmers while encouraging sustainable practices. As you correctly pointed out, the unsustainable industrial animal agriculture system we have was created by policy choices, and different policy choices can be made if people push for them. But reducing every conversation to COWS BAD! VEGAN GOOD! is a gross oversimplification that isn't helping anybody.

[@egghole3]

@EcoKiwiMagazine I'm not in favor of that. Meat should be what it always was: a luxury. I'm in favor of small rotating farms. You can keep a single cow on as little as a half-achre at a time. Grasses and clovers fix nitrogen into the soil, the cows graze and manure the field, then you sow your crops. Repeat. It's not really that simple, but I'm still learning about this. Broad strokes. Deforestation is unacceptable and we can do so much more with the land we already have, you know? I left a more detailed reply about this on another comment, but it appears to be hidden for some reason. I gotta get going, though.

[@robsengahay5614]

@@composthisOr we could stop regarding sentient, gentle animals as “products”. Wouldn’t that be civilised?

[@jimkogelheide6973]

I watched a doc a few years ago that spoke about the methane being released from all along the northern coastline of Russia! Shocking! I'd love to see you focus on this aspect of the methane conversation!

[@jimkogelheide6973]

Oh sorry! You mentioned it slightly at 10:30

[@violetzitola8385]

KZbin unsubscribed me and I just came back. 600k is good, but really it should be 600M!! Keep up the good work 👍

[@stephenduncan8292]

Subscribed > 3 years. Can't be a Patreon but you have my gratitude for straightforward reportage ...❤😅

[@grindupBaker]

I gived you a thumbup for "reportaaaaage". Think I saw you at a cocktail party once.

[@shaykespeeer7040]

IF you think Methane emissions are bad, wait until you find out about Nitrous Oxide emissions: "Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years." "Livestock' Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". FAO. Rome. 2006 "Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States". U.S. Energy Information Administration. March 31, 2011

[@buddhuu1]

That number seems really high. I'm guessing they're including the nitrous oxide from producing livestock feed? Also, those seem like rather old references?

[@buddhuu1]

A more recent 2024 epa estimate, did not find exact answer in very brief googling. From the other hits on google, it would appear to be more like 32% livestock, not 65%. Agriculture is rated at 60%. www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#:~:text=The%20application%20of%20nitrogen%20fertilizers%20accounts%20for%20the%20majority%20of%20N2O%20emissions%20in%20the%20United%20States. "The application of nitrogen fertilizers accounts for the majority of N2O emissions in the United States. "

[@michaeldepodesta001]

Try adding 400 ppm of blue food colouring into water. i.e. 0.4 grams in a kilogram (litre) of water. 1. IT's clearly blue. 2. If you look through 1 cm of it - it's quite transparent 3. If you look through a long depth (e.g. 1 metre) it's almost opaque. For CO2 the relevant absorption length is a few hundred metres.

[@Primergy89]

Try the same with black ink.

[@michaeldepodesta001]

@@Primergy89 I think the result will be similar, but I think black ink may contain actual small carbon particles rather than being a chemical with a characteristic transmission spectrum. I'm not entirely sure. You can see a video of the demonstration here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGS8iYOmg6mKhbc

[@skierpage]

The science of why only 400 ppm of CO2 DOES INCREASE WARMING is interesting and has a 160-year history going back to John Tyndall, but it's too complicated to explain to denialist dullards who don't want to understand. The metaphor of an insulating blanket of greenhouse gases is misleading; Mr. Think is right to talk about molecules absorbing infrared and re-radiating roughly half back down to Earth. "Climate explained: why carbon dioxide has such outsized influence on Earth’s climate" by Jason West on The Conversation is a pretty good summary. From that: "People sometimes ask me why carbon dioxide is important for climate, given that water vapor absorbs more infrared radiation and the two gases absorb at several of the same wavelengths. The reason is that Earth’s upper atmosphere controls the radiation that escapes to space. The upper atmosphere is much less dense and contains much less water vapor than near the ground, which means that adding more carbon dioxide significantly influences how much infrared radiation escapes to space."

[@tjarlzquoll9835]

Try adding of ricin to your body at a rate of 1ppm or 1mg per kg: Lethal oral dose.

[@tradeprosper5002]

When I looked into meat consumption, most of the increase in beef, pork and lamb seemed to be coming from developing countries. The new middle class in Asia use to view meat as a luxury and can now afford it. Beef consumed per capita while chicken consumption had increased in developed countries. It would be interesting to see if that is still the case.

[@Vicartje]

Just want to say Thank you for your videos, as they give good insight in the science behind the talking points. Eventhough this video also didn't make me jump with joy ofcourse. Over the last decade I have come to see more and more how it is entirely possible that there have been many great, technologically advanced civilisations before us. Just like us they stopped chiselling our history and advancements in stone so when they eventually destroyed themselves by a descent in stupity and willfull ignorance, not a trace of them (us) ever existing was left.

[@theCodyReeder]

3:50 Methane isn't actually much better at stopping infared light, its just that the methane blocks wavelengths of light that carbon dioxide let's through. The combined effect is much greater than either single gas. Its kind of like a stack of sieves with slightly different sized holes; You capture more material than a single sieve.

[@stringlarson1247]

Add to that the positive feedback loop(s) of one pre-heating the other and vice versa. This is not to be confused with the other positive feedback of a rise in temperature leading to more methane being released.

[@BurnettMary]

In a practical sense, that a bit misleading since we are concerned with the additive effect of increasing concentrations of these gases given the current atmospheric composition. For example, given an atmosphere where CO2 is 400ppm and CH4 is 1.4ppm, the effect of adding 1ppm of CH4 would be greater that adding 50ppm of CO2 (in terms of radiative forcing). [this is my quick radiative forcing calc, so check this for yourself to verify it]

[@theCodyReeder]

@@BurnettMary ​ yes that is the right idea but if it were the other way around and the atmosphere had mostly methane the warming effect of adding a little CO2 would be more than the effect of adding more methane.

[@AuJohnM]

Yes, methane does absorb (and emit) at wavelengths that CO2 does, but water vapor, at at least 600 times the concentration of methane does. Methane does so near to nothing that all sensible people ignore it.

[@neilbowler7866]

​@@AuJohnM'sensible' people.....by which you mean oil companies, climate science deniers and irresponsible governments and not climate scientists. That said, 'sensible' people are ignoring the potential problems of methane likely to be released by the melting of the permafrost in arctic regions and seabed.

[@henrydale9762]

There is only one Donald Trump on earth: 1 part in 7 billion. So he can’t have any effect, then. 😮

[@FacingFuture]

would it were so!

[@AuJohnM]

He's one of the sane voices on climate change that hasn't been conned by UN hysteria.

[@ChinchillaBONK]

Should we tell him?

[@dc37009]

@@AuJohnM You don't get to "Pretend Stupid" anymore; Your Evil, own it !

[@quicknumbercrunch8691]

One in eight billion +. Overpopulation is destroying the biosphere. For us it is poor health and violence. By the time it reaches 9 billion people will be living ten years less than they are now. Lifespans are already declining. Overpopulation also shortens lives through territorial wars. Stephen Pinker aside, things are getting worse, fast.

[@nickmcconnell1291]

Another reason NOT to use hydrogen in transportation or otherwise if it can be avoided. Hydrogen leaks easily and can lead to slower degradation of methane. This occurs because hydrogen easily combines with certain molecules in the lower atmosphere before they can make their way to the upper atmosphere where they would combine with and thus degrade methane's warming capabilities. The more hydrogen escaping into our atmosphere, the less methane degradation. Instead of degrading in 12 years it may be much longer.

[@skierpage]

Yup. And because dirty hydrogen from leaky natural gas is 95+% of the hydrogen supply, and because it takes so much more renewable energy to make green H2, hydrogen in transportation may only be lower overall greenhouse gas emissions than diesel if the H2 is 90% from green H2 powered 100% by renewables. Spoiler: it isn't. Next time you read about some dopey hydrogen bus or truck trial, ask what % of its H2 supply _currently_ comes from 100% renewably powered green H2.

[@codydonreeder4056]

Interesting I had not heard of that.

[@nickmcconnell1291]

@ Look up article entitled "Risk of the hydrogen economy for atmospheric methane". 👍

[@markgisborne9991]

Pigs are not a ruminate animal. They are not a significant source of methane. They also reduce human made food waste. You can keep eating meat, and help the planet.

[@alden1132]

I stress out about this, a lot. I was just talking about it to a friend earlier today. The scary thing, to me, is how few people seem to know about it.

[@Oi....]

Some of the denialist I chat with seem to NOT want to have things explained, they made their mind up & won't be changed. Similar to young Earth creationists on Evolution, they get pissy when Evolution is explained & jump topic, Flat Earthers do the same, fire a new question when they realise the first question is being explained.

[@danshillabeer9523]

You're absolutely right. There are still minds open to reality. Focus on them.

[@Oi....]

@@danshillabeer9523 I'm always trying to spread the word, & walk away when I hit the mental brick wall.

[@PsillyApeUSA]

“Denialist” and former alarmist here. Methane being used to prove man made climate change is shit. The levels of methane shot up out of nowhere in 2007, when permafrost was still largely intact and ice caps at average levels. It wasn’t until 2012 that the northern ice cap went to record lows. It is known and established the methane is coming from tropical wetlands. What triggered this is debatable but not even IPCC is willing to claim humans are the cause of the methane emissions.

[@geoffhaylock6848]

That applies to both sides of any argument.

[@bobmayo56]

They are not seeking to understand, they are seeking to justify their position and convince others of it.

[@Artemio-derose]

Most rich people stay rich by spending like the poor and investing without stopping then most poor people stay poor by spending like the rich yet not investing like the rich but impressing them. People prefer to spend money on liabilities, Rather than investing in assets and be very profitable

[@thihanhphan7777]

You are so correct! Save, invest and spend for necessities and a few small luxuries relatives to one's total assets ratio.

[@Ralfschultz-n3y]

Investing in crypto now should be in every wise individuals list, in some months time you'll be ecstatic with the decision you made today.

[@Tiahorton-u5s]

I wanted to trade Crypto but got discouraged by the fluctuations in price

[@mdionise]

Now, I Just realized that the secret to making a million is saving for better trades. I always tell myself you don't need that new Maserati or that vacation just yet. That mindset helped me make more money trading. For example last year I Traded with 10k in Crypto and made about $146k, but guess what? I put it all back and traded again and now I am rounding up close to a million

[@สงวนจันทเนตร]

Hello how do you make such?? I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down 🤦‍♀️of myself because of low finance but I still believe in God

[@GyattGPT]

Denialists simultaneously say that the low ppm of carbon dioxide won't do anything, while also suggesting that higher carbon dioxide means better agriculture production.

[@kmoses582]

That's coming from the idea that CO2 is not that powerful when it comes to warming, but it would make a large difference with plant growth.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@kmoses582 And you support that "idea"?

[@kmoses582]

@@jaykanta4326 Do you not realize that plants use CO2

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@kmoses582 Do you not realise that a change in concentration changes the physiology of the plant? I mean... YOU could breath a high oxygen atmosphere... would it be "good" for you? Or would it alter the balance of your Pulmonary system?

[@kmoses582]

@@rogerstarkey5390 That does not change the fact that plants grow faster and use less water under ~400 PPM compared to 280 PPM.

[@DrDanWeaver]

Always great work and efficiently delivered. Thanks.

[@michaelketley1252]

I’ve been concerned about a positive methane feedback loop for sometime now.

[@leviandhiro3596]

Aint no point talking about this when armies around the world are launching missiles and using ICE to move thier weapons of war

[@skierpage]

Your whatboutism isn't helpful.

[@tradeprosper5002]

Guess we will have to walk and chew gum at the same time...

[@discountchocolate4577]

@@tradeprosper5002 The US military and military-industrial complex are among the globe's biggest GHG emitters so the walk-and-chew-gum approach is absolutely correct. Anti-imperialism and climate justice are not only related struggles but inseparably bound up with each other. Anyone wondering why Greta Thunberg seems to have pivoted to marching in support of the Palestine liberation movement, this is why.

[@arcrides6841]

@@skierpage Yes it is. Very ironically it's your (and billions of others') willful ignorance of the situation which isn't helpful. Well actually it is helpful for the powers who want to keep using 20,000,000,000 litres of oil per year for their completely pointless endeavors. The more people that point this out the better. Don't forget they've already destroyed the lives of about 800,000 children this year alone. By destroyed I mean no longer breathing or mutilated.

[@tristanridley1601]

The big war right now was literally funded by methane and oil sales...

[@Pecisk]

Yes, we have. Judging by all data, very few businesses do anything practical besides just outright lying about their efforts.

[@TheFabledSCP7000]

Which is why I recommend Mossy Earth and Planet Wild Admittedly they are more focused on ecological conservation, but half of their projects focus on managing the damage done by bad carbon sequestration projects

[@madpete6438]

Money is so much more important than life.

[@jimthain8777]

@@TheFabledSCP7000 They work with life, and life is one of the better things at sequestering these gasses out of the atmosphere.

[@tedratcliffe2498]

Not to be a doomer, but since the 2010s, the most significant increase has been from natural sources, mostly tropical wetlands. This may mean that we have crossed a tipping point.

[@cloudpoint0]

“Research from 2020 has demonstrated that the spike in atmospheric methane levels in recent decades is coming from natural gas extraction (as opposed to farming and livestock, or natural sources such as peat bogs and melting permafrost). Moreover, the rise in methane is responsible for as much as 25 percent of the warming during this period.” - Michael Mann

[@Campaigner82]

@@cloudpoint0Now THATS a good source 😃

[@antonyjh1234]

Makes me wonder why all western countries had wetland renewals as part of their plan over the last 20 years, they knew warming emissions from wetlands would double, why increase the number of them, overall was the view or habitat worth it. But yeah cheap natural gas is awash around the world, Qatar turn it into jet fuel and give it to the airline free, Australia now the equal largest exporter since 2010 and places like Uk where home heating is more emissions than all electricity, both done with gas and all gas well's leak, be really hard to imagine the simplest explanation isn't the main reason, especially since fracking etc kicked off then.

[@andrewpaterson5192]

Ignoring Methane is a core policy of the current NZ government.

[@jennyfeatherstone3574]

Wowee Dave you certainly got a lot of people hot under the collar with this one. Shame for the planet we seem to be singing from different hymn sheets🙁

[@haraldlonn898]

Blaming the cows is below the belt. Take away humans and all will be just fine on this earth.

[@jasenanderson8534]

Yeah but that's unethical, you can't just "take away" humans, but you CAN reduce the things humans do.

[@mortenprehn7964]

This is actually a very valid point. Population growth is to a great extend ignored in the climate debat. But if we really want to avoid serious climate change, we need to reduce population growth and applude population decline.

[@onetwothreeabc]

@@jasenanderson8534 You CANNOT reduce the things humans do, just like you cannot reduce humans. Life and liberty.

[@koryneumann447]

take away humans and you've just caused the extinction of most animals who've evolved to co-exist with us. That includes cows.

[@Andrewp226]

$450k Returns the Lord is my saviour in times of my need!!!

[@janetfreeman2300]

wow this awesome 👏 I'm 37 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??

[@Andrewp226]

It's Ms. Susan Jane Christy doing, she's changed my life.

[@jonathandyes]

After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.

[@doroteasilva]

Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Ms. Susan Jane Christy.

[@bernardallen9058]

Can't imagine earning $85,000 biweekly, God bless Ms. Susan Jane Christy, God bless America 🇺🇸♥️

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

Too late to stop the permafrost from melting and releasing gigatons of CO2, CH4, & NO. We are already in full-on feedback loop mode. In addition we've already baked in 2.5°C to 3.0°C with our current 525ppm CO2-eq. It will take every bit of human effort ingenuity & sacrifice to keep us below 4°C by the end of century.

[@everythingmatters6308]

Have you seen Dr. Peter Carter lately? We are now projecting worse than RCP 8.5.

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

@everythingmatters6308 Yes and I believe he and Jim Hanson are correct.

[@achenarmyst2156]

James Hansen….?

[@samcerulean1412]

Those are just predictions, there’s not even significant confidence in the 1.3 degrees warming since the industrial start. It could be less that 1 degree

[@peters972]

Natgas capture from landfills is lucrative I would think a no brainer for municipalities

[@obiwanbenobi4943]

Also in the past several years there have been some major events which released a large amount of methane (a place in California and the Nord Stream Pipeline breach) among others I am sure.

[@jonathanbard6603]

I am not the smart chap you are, but I do believe in the science. Thank you for making it easy to understand . Sadly, we in the states have an incoming administration that is hell bent on greatly exacerbating this issue. Thanks again

[@Richard482]

Don't put yourself down. A willingness to learn shows a high level of intelligence.

[@Aermydach]

Science is not something one believes. Either you accept the methodical, replicatable, empirically backed conclusions reached by smart people whose job it is to tear apart their fellow's conclusions, Or you don't. Belief is for the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Religion.

[@johngage5391]

Join thousands of other concerned citizens at Citizens Climate Lobby's fall conference on December 7 and learn how you can help us create the political will to enable Congress to pass effective and fair climate solutions. Thanks!

[@Debbie-henri]

If you've listened to the science, understand it sufficiently to know that it is right, can see for yourself that things are changing all around the world, can recall that extreme events were much less common when you were a child, and use words like exacerbate in the correct context - you're smarter than you think. Don't knock yourself.

[@timdana3129]

Don’t Believe. Seek understanding

[@rbphilip]

A friend’s dad worked for NIST 20+ years ago and was certainly concerned about methane being released into the atmosphere. But few were listening.

[@erictaylor5462]

But Carbon dioxide is not only toxic, it is very toxic. The work place limit is just 0.5%. 1% will have noticeable physiological effects, 4-5% will cause significant respiratory distress and unconsciousness within minutes, 8-10% Can cause unconsciousness within seconds and death after a single breath or very short exposure. This is due to rapid disruption of normal respiratory function, oxygen displacement, and severe acidosis.

[@gailowen4360]

Love your show but please solve the international issue of dying soils in tandem with the issue of ruminants. These issues affect each other. To look at them in silos is to dangerously oversimplify them.

[@enriquefuentesortega2251]

As always, I loved the way you approached the issue. However.... I think the negative feedback loop in the arctic was underestimated. The studies on thawing permafrost, particularly in Siberia, have disappeared from sight, as have the scientists who were working on that sensitive research. From the data I have reviewed, it looks like that tipping point has already been reached. I really hope you keep your eye on this. Bests from Puerto Escondido in Mexico.

[@braeburn2333]

Thanks for reporting on methane. A couple points you made, however, need a little clarification. The first is that, the reason why methane's ability to act as a greenhouse gas goes from approximately 80 to approximately 20 times CO2's ability is not because it somehow changes in its molecular properties, its because the people who calculated this assume the methane molecules will be oxidized to CO2 by UV light and oxygen over time. In effect, they assume there will be less methane over time. This way of reporting methane's greenhouse gas properties, is deceptive, as you implied. I find it particularly deceptive because, since the methane levels in the atmosphere are increasing, the immediate greenhouse gas effect, which is, I believe found to be around 120 times that of CO2, Is the effect we feel. The second thing I want to clarify is to do with methane from ruminants. It is true, that feed lot cattle who are fed a grain heavy diet produce lots of methane in their many stomachs. However, cows which are grass fed produce much less methane, aside from growing healthier, tastier meat. Cows which are managed in ways which mimic nature, such as mob grazing, can rebuild soil. Soil has more than 5 times more carbon than the vegetation growing on it. Rebuilding soil can sequester 10 tons of CO2 per acre per year. Deserts can be turned into carbon sucking savannahs in a dozen years or so when livestock is managed this way. Its been done in many places already. So, imo, we need to change how livestock is managed, not whether we should have livestock.

[@grindupBaker]

One must take into account the difference between the radiative properties of a gas in a laboratory sample and its so-called "greenhouse effect (GHE)" in Earth's troposphere, which is dependent on the tropospheric temperature lapse rate of course combined with the gas molecular radiative properties and concentrations throughout altitudinal range. So I'm not saying you're incorrect, e.g. not saying your 120 is incorrect because I can't recall ever calculating it (maybe but I forget stuff), So here are some actual CH4 & CO2 "Forcings" for sample changes in amount from U.Chicago MODTRAN (licensed from U.S. Air Force Research Lab & Spectral Sciences, Inc). CH4 tropical atmosphere ppmv clear cumulus sky 0.66-2.7 km w/m**2 base 290.0 260.0 1.5 8.49 9.79 1.78 8.30 9.63 2019 end 1.87 8.24 9.60 2.0 8.14 9.54 2.5 7.89 9.32 3.0 7.64 9.13 3.5 7.42 8.97 4.0 7.20 8.82 4.5 7.01 8.66 5.0 6.86 8.53 5.34 6.73 8.44 5.5 6.70 8.41 6.0 6.54 8.28 7.0 6.26 8.09 8.0 6.00 7.87 9.0 5.79 7.72 10.0 5.57 7.53 11.0 5.38 7.37 12.0 5.19 7.25 13.0 5.00 7.09 14.0 4.85 6.96 15.0 4.69 6.84 16.0 4.53 6.74 17.0 4.38 6.62 18.0 4.25 6.52 18.4 4.19 6.46 18.6 4.16 6.43 18.7 4.16 6.43 18.8 4.12 6.43 19.0 4.09 6.40 19.4 4.06 6.37 (3.70 average from 1.78 ppmv) 20.0 3.97 6.30 21.0 3.84 6.21 So CH4 doubled from 2.0 ppmv to 4.0 ppmv gives 0.83 w/m**2 Forcing for a tropical atmosphere 50%/50% clear sky & cumulus mix. CO2 increasing from 420 ppmv to 422 ppmv gives 0.0254 w/m**2 Forcing so CH4 is 0.83 / 0.0254 = 33 times as strong on a per-ppmv basis as an immediate affect according to MODTRAN. CO2 doubled from 420 ppmv to 840 ppmv gives 3.71 w/m**2 Forcing so CH4 is 0.83 * 420 / ( 3.71 * 2.0) = 47 times as strong on a per-doubling basis as an immediate affect according to MODTRAN. And so on. ----------- REFERENCE: U.S. Air Force, Kirtland Air Force Base in 1982 to produce MODTRAN (LOTRAN & HITRAN) that's unclassified and available for license fee (it's Patented). "MODTRAN4 has been available to the public since Jan 2000. It remains the state-of-the-art atmospheric band model radiation transport model". "PATENT: The Air Force Research Lab, Space Vehicles Directorate, in collaboration with Spectral Sciences, Inc., is pleased to continue the release of MODTRAN4 as a fully UNCLASSIFIED atmospheric radiative transfer code and algorithm. MODTRAN4 follows the prior releases of LOWTRAN (now fully obsolete) and the earlier MODTRAN3 series. MODTRAN4 has been awarded a U.S. Patent, # 5,884,226; 16 March 1999".

[@andreamortimer2610]

What people keep missing is that an extremely tiny percentage of a huge number still makes for a huge number; and a large percentage of a very tiny number, still makes for a tiny number! I had an argument with one of my friends involving the small percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. He said "nothing that tiny can have such an affect on our climate." So I asked him since it was that tiny, if he'd be willing to take on that tiny percentage of our national debt and he said "sure, no problem!" and gave me this smile kind of saying "See, what's the fuss!" Thus, together we looked up the number of our national debt and together we did the math. Needless to say he turned somewhat pale when it started to dawn on him ...

[@jimthain8777]

This IS terrific!

[@axeman2638]

your analogy is ass.

[@DANELL1979]

MASS EXTINCTION EVENT ( OCCURING RIGHT NOW )

[@axeman2638]

more like mass psychosis event.

[@geoffevans7915]

Hello Dave. On a different topic, why are ev sales slowing down? The answer given is the lack of chargers. But they are everywhere! But, as Eric Morcombe might have said, yes I’ve put them everywhere, but not in the right places! Driving locally is easy for us lucky enough to have a drive but when we drive long distances we use motorways. How about an episode about the availability of ev chargers on motorway survice areas and why we don’t have enough of them? Regards, Geoff.

[@Garrison169]

Tesla superchargers are located conveniently all over the US, so road trips in a Tesla is easy. The navigation system will tell you where to stop and how long you need to charge there along your route. More chargers are being added as the number of EVs increases. Most driving is not on road trips, but on city driving and commuting. If you can charge where you live, this is exceptionally convenient. Another advantage is you never have an oil change or a a tuneup with an EV. The brakes will last the life of the car, since with regenerative braking the brake pedal is seldom pressed. Recent data I have seen indicates that EV sales are steady, or increasing in the US.

[@UlrichHarms-ci1ov]

The higher effectiveness of methane is to a large part due to the smaller concentration to start with. Inside the absorbtion band already the rather small levels absorb all the IR radiation. With higher concentrationthe blocked bands widen. This does not happen on a linear concentration scale, but more on a logarithmic. In a simplified picture doubling the CO2 contrentration has a comparatble effect to doubling the methane concentration, just far less methane needed for this and thus less methane needed for the same effect. With incleasing methane level the effectiveness will go down however. It's already a factor 2.5 down from the time when the concetration was at 0.7 ppm. Still no excuse to emitt more, but linear calculation will overestimate the effect. The methane part is at least one that we can fix relatively fast (on human time scale). For CO2 it just need very long to get down again by natural processes.

[@grindupBaker]

Yep to the concept, I'm not bothering to check calculations. One must take into account the difference between the radiative properties of a gas in a laboratory sample and its so-called "greenhouse effect (GHE)" in Earth's troposphere, which is dependent on the tropospheric temperature lapse rate of course combined with the gas molecular radiative properties and concentrations throughout altitudinal range. So I'm not saying you're incorrect, e.g. not saying your 120 is incorrect because I can't recall ever calculating it (maybe but I forget stuff), So here are some actual CH4 & CO2 "Forcings" for sample changes in amount from U.Chicago MODTRAN (licensed from U.S. Air Force Research Lab & Spectral Sciences, Inc). CH4 tropical atmosphere ppmv clear cumulus sky 0.66-2.7 km w/m**2 base 290.0 260.0 1.5 8.49 9.79 1.78 8.30 9.63 2019 end 1.87 8.24 9.60 2.0 8.14 9.54 2.5 7.89 9.32 3.0 7.64 9.13 3.5 7.42 8.97 4.0 7.20 8.82 4.5 7.01 8.66 5.0 6.86 8.53 5.34 6.73 8.44 5.5 6.70 8.41 6.0 6.54 8.28 7.0 6.26 8.09 8.0 6.00 7.87 9.0 5.79 7.72 10.0 5.57 7.53 11.0 5.38 7.37 12.0 5.19 7.25 13.0 5.00 7.09 14.0 4.85 6.96 15.0 4.69 6.84 16.0 4.53 6.74 17.0 4.38 6.62 18.0 4.25 6.52 18.4 4.19 6.46 18.6 4.16 6.43 18.7 4.16 6.43 18.8 4.12 6.43 19.0 4.09 6.40 19.4 4.06 6.37 (3.70 average from 1.78 ppmv) 20.0 3.97 6.30 21.0 3.84 6.21 So CH4 doubled from 2.0 ppmv to 4.0 ppmv gives 0.83 w/m**2 Forcing for a tropical atmosphere 50%/50% clear sky & cumulus mix. CO2 increasing from 420 ppmv to 422 ppmv gives 0.0254 w/m**2 Forcing so CH4 is 0.83 / 0.0254 = 33 times as strong on a per-ppmv basis as an immediate affect according to MODTRAN. CO2 doubled from 420 ppmv to 840 ppmv gives 3.71 w/m**2 Forcing so CH4 is 0.83 * 420 / ( 3.71 * 2.0) = 47 times as strong on a per-doubling basis as an immediate affect according to MODTRAN. And so on. ----------- REFERENCE: U.S. Air Force, Kirtland Air Force Base in 1982 to produce MODTRAN (LOTRAN & HITRAN) that's unclassified and available for license fee (it's Patented). "MODTRAN4 has been available to the public since Jan 2000. It remains the state-of-the-art atmospheric band model radiation transport model". "PATENT: The Air Force Research Lab, Space Vehicles Directorate, in collaboration with Spectral Sciences, Inc., is pleased to continue the release of MODTRAN4 as a fully UNCLASSIFIED atmospheric radiative transfer code and algorithm. MODTRAN4 follows the prior releases of LOWTRAN (now fully obsolete) and the earlier MODTRAN3 series. MODTRAN4 has been awarded a U.S. Patent, # 5,884,226; 16 March 1999".

[@Pasandeeros]

GWP(0) of CH4 is "at least" 120 times that of CO2. As long as the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere is growing with no end in sight we should not use GWP(20) or GWP(100) of CH4. That is simply dishonest.

[@iandavies4853]

Ahh … you skipped straight to un-burned methane - leakage. Correct in the science, but it needs context of why gas extraction generates leakage. Overall, excellent video. ** edit: US avoided developing cheap RE by investing in fracked gas. EU used Russian gas. Longer term, both a mistake.

[@compostjohn]

My favourite molecule. I did a talk to the West Yorkshire Humanists a few years back called The Trouble With Methane - and one of the organisers contacted me afterwards with a complaint that some of the attendees were 'traumatised' by the information. I was glad about that. Shocks can move people and change their behaviour.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Trauma is more likely to cause people to get depressed and do nothing than to move them and change their behavior. I mean, why stop eating meat if we're doomed anyway. That's the sort of attitude that you don't want to engender.

[@gingernutpreacher]

So what are we going to do about rice?

[@imacmill]

Put ginger sauce on it.

[@ambrosenuk]

@@gingernutpreacher I mean, rice still has a lower total warming impact than all meats per gram of protein, or per kg, or per calorie, so it's not the only issue.

[@J.M.-nb4gw]

Ain't nothin' can save us now, humans are so seriously screwed and doomed to near term extinction due to our collective ignorance and greed...we are less than 10 years away from total ecological and economic collapse, and it's only a few more years until total human extinction 😁

[@jjchouinard2327]

Thank you for what you do

[@Garrison169]

Methane degrades into carbon dioxide and water vapor, which are less potent greenhouse gases than methane but still contribute to global warming. The process can also produce ozone as a secondary pollutant in the troposphere, contributing to air quality issues.

[@jaykanta4326]

It's why CO2 is still considered the primary driver of global warming.

[@petewright4640]

The water vapour component of methane decay isn't important because the overall amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by temperature. Any extra precipitates out.

[@rhaedas9085]

Regarding methane's decay (the twelve years mentioned) - that is dependent on the quantity of the components available to cause that decay. The main one being hydroxyl radicals created in the upper atmosphere at a regular rate. When other things like CO from wildfires or even faster methane release overwhelms these radicals, less methane gets broken down over that time period. Guess what also gets affected if more methane hangs around? The half life, and thus the overall GHG power over time. So the numbers that the IPCC still refers to (28 times CO2 over 100 years, 84 times CO2 over 20 years) are probably too low now because of so many methane spikes. I.e., it's worse than expected.

[@macmcleod1188]

If it's any consolation, it's probably been too late since about 2012.

[@macmcleod1188]

And no I'm not saying that justifies not trying to fix things. Based on a swag from a napkin I think we might be able to fix things for about 15 trillion dollars with direct carbon capture. But even that window is going to close in a few years.

[@billweir1745]

@@macmcleod1188 There are far too many people that believe it isn't an issue for things to fundamentally change. Pair that with the incoming US administration, we're going to be taken at least 10 years back, and more damage will be done.

[@robertcartwright4374]

The devil's in the details. Again!

[@incognitotorpedo42]

If the grotesque cost and thermodynamic inefficiencies of hydrogen as an energy carrier were not enough, it escapes very easily, being the smallest molecule, and once it the atmosphere, proceeds to gobble up and neutralize the OH radicals that are needed to cause the decay of methane! So besides wasting money, the supposedly "clean" hydrogen has a significant global warming potential due to it making methane last longer in the atmosphere.

[@CapitalismDependencyENDS2025]

If you want to have a think using some common sense there is only one way to prevent climate change. If the world ended cost of living today and made sure everyone had a home with solar power and communities growing all the food they need global emissions could collapse over 90% in 1 year. For every percentage you collapse the economy a percentage of world emissions is reduced. Less traffic to and from work. Less exporting and importing. Non essential jobs would completely be gone without cost of living. Capitalism would be dead and there would be no competition anymore. The threats of war would be over because lets be real capitalism and ideology creates war and fear. With a peaceful utopia like living environment nature would begin to restore itself and society would focus more on educations and the values of life. Understanding the perception of reality and removing the ideological manipulation the human race has corrupted itself with would disappear. The current state of affairs in this civilization around the world cannot be allowed anymore. We must fix the mistakes of our past and present to create a sustainable future or all will be lost forever.

[@AlfaStation1]

THIS! (And get rid of nations, countries, and religions. We all live on the same world and, as far as we know, there's only 1 planet Earth in the universe.)

[@timberdoodle6924]

We can't escape climate change - it's part of the planets natural recovery process. We can however reduce pollution.

[@theelectricmonk3909]

"If the world ended cost of living today and made sure everyone had a home with solar power and communities growing all the food they need global emissions could collapse over 90% in 1 year." - It wouldn't happen, though, because people resist change. Locally grown food means giving up any number of items we've got used to over the last 100-200 years. For the UK, for example: No bananas or pineapples ever. No tomatos all winter. Sprouts for an entire 2-3 month period from November onwards. It'd be a methane catastrophe! "For every percentage you collapse the economy a percentage of world emissions is reduced" - Except the human population continues to grow hugely; economic growth will follow just as night follows day. It is inevitable, as everyone is a consumer, whether we like it or not. We, as a population, can certainly make some changes which, long term, will have a huge beneficial impact on our environment - but every billion additional mouths to feed will undo all that good work. We need to find a humane way to stabilise, and ideally reduce, the sheer number of humans on the planet.

[@onetwothreeabc]

Good luck fighting capitalism, my friend.

[@jennyfeatherstone3574]

​@@onetwothreeabcsadly I agree

[@richardbrice6535]

Here in Trujillo Perú my neighbours are being offered a 10-year finance plan so that they can stop buying propane gas cylinders for their kitchens. Sounds good, doesn't it, until you find out that it's being replaced with piped natural gas in what has always been known to be an earthquake zone.

[@mal2ksc]

Great! Let's trade an occasional but still too frequent local disaster for one massive catastrophe when the whole system fails! That's what has happened with forestry as well; in the name of preventing everyday disasters, they let fuel accumulate for years and then it all gets away from them. We have to learn the hard way not to wall off a problem until it literally explodes.

[@zapfanzapfan]

Solar panels, a battery bank and a hot plate seems like a better investment.

[@madpete6438]

Politicians are generally complete narcissistic morons. We live in a giant earthquake zone and some idiot bunch of politicians decided we need nuclear power - Morons. And now the USA's official policy is MORE hydrocarbons. Ego Maniacal Politicians are going to kill us all as fast as possible so long as they die with lots of resources.

[@jimthain8777]

So piping methane is a known leak hazard. We have that here as the way our houses are heated. To say the industry doesn't care if our civilization continues or not, is putting it mildly. To me they seem bent on crashing civilization as fast as possible.

[@onetwothreeabc]

Why don’t they use electric stoves to cook?

[@tjarlzquoll9835]

Waiting for the Regenerative Agriculture dupes to turn up with their apologetics.

[@GeorgeDoughty-m8e]

We never had control of methane gas and never will.

[@FredrikMalm-Möller]

Hello and welcome to just have a drink😊

[@JohnBBuck]

Another outstanding video, Dave.

[@robdevilee8167]

Temperature rise is only part of the picture. Things could get even worse. During the Permian-Triassic extinction event it was theorized that oceans became anoxic, and anoxic bacteria breathed hydrogen sulfide gas, creating acid rain across the globe. Scary stuff. Of course, such oceans don't contain fish, they're dead. It was also theorized that methane hydrates were involved in the extremely high temperatures at the time. Temperatures in tropical seas rose to 35 degrees celcius. The weird thing is, these things have been observed and described, and we know we're heading there one day, and yet nothing substantial is done about it. Another big unknown is the oceans and their ability to squester CO2. The oceans contain 60x more CO2 than the atmosphere, but of course if temperatures rise, the solubility of CO2 drops. They might stop absorbing CO2 at some point, maybe return it. Some research suggest that large releases of CO2 by the oceans has contributed to the end of ice ages, so it's not uncommon for an ocean to belch up CO2.

[@Rene-uz3eb]

I think if you burn, you burn, and no things can't get worse than that

[@Tengooda]

Hydrogen sulphide (H2S, the bad egg smell) is highly toxic. Being a reducing agent, H2S in the atmosphere readily reacts with ozone, a strong oxidising agent , thus destroying the ozone layer and allowing harmful UV to penetrate the atmosphere. It is only a weak acid itself, but when oxidised it eventually ends up as sulphuric acid, which is a strong acid. If the anoxic and euxinic oceans do start releasing large quantities of H2S we will probably already be dead anyway, but if anyone has survived by that point they'll probably be wishing they hadn't.

[@Campaigner82]

I haven’t heard anything about when the oceans will stop absorbing CO2 and return it to the atmosphere. THAT would be a serious tipping point.

[@robdevilee8167]

@@Campaigner82 I think it went something like this: deep ocean water is rich in carbon. This was transported to the surface when an ocean current restarted. Then the carbon was released into the atmosphere. To be honest, I don't know what happens in the future. Probably nobody knows. Some research stated that hot water at the top wouldn't sink down anymore, stopping ocean currents. In that case, the ocean will stop absorbing CO2. That would also be bad. Other research states that ocean currents will keep working even during hotter periods. One fun fact is that hot water can hold less CO2. But to take effect, first the deep ocean will have to heat up, which can take hundreds of years. So I think it's not an urgent thing at the moment.

[@dougaltolan3017]

Deniers: environMENTALists will send us back to the stone age. Rational people: deniers will send us back to primordial soup.

[@bringhomethebasil8729]

I think people end up losing their accounts altogether for violating rules and then they sign up under a new account & forget they ever did - later surprised they run into a channel they used to watch & find themselves unsubscribed only recalling they once was ..

[@ab-td7gq]

Easiest way to lower human caused methane emissions is changing toward plant based foods and raise this to be one of the most important topics in connection to climate change. Im happy that you're one of the few to point this out.

[@bunny_apocalypse]

what about the wetland emissions that are accelerating?

[@toyotaprius79]

​@@bunny_apocalypseand the investments in new fossil fuel extraction and incentives?

[@jamesmurphy9426]

Translation let corporations make food instead of farmers Lets not improve farming technology just make food in the laboratory What could go wrong

[@syiridium703]

​@@jamesmurphy9426 Wheat and other cereals, legumes, vegetables and fruits are not made by farmers but in laboratories? I didn't know that, thanks for educating us!

[@Alpinefolk]

@@jamesmurphy9426plants are generally grown on farms

[@ricklines8755]

I just had a think. And now I am feeling hopeless and defeated.

[@johngage5391]

There are good solutions, all we need is the political will to enable Congress to pass them. Join Citizens Climate Lobby's fall conference on December 7 to see how you can help. Thanks!

[@jededge]

do things that make you happy

[@skierpage]

Fossil fuel interests (and big meat) want you to feel that way. But you will never not have the ability to make the future less bad. Individual action is not as effective as changing policy, but you can stick it to fossil fuel companies by using less of their product. The Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions analyzed the top choices to reduce your emissions (popularized by the BBC article "Climate change: Top 10 tips to reduce carbon footprint revealed"), and they're as you expect: live car free or buy an EV, fly less, buy renewable energy, improve building efficiency (insulation), eat less meat, switch to a heat pump. And share with other people what you're doing. Fossil fuel companies are terrified of people rejecting their products, so you'll get pushback from dullards and shills accusing you of virtue signaling, being smug, etc. F*** 'em. Those insults are just synonyms for "doing the right thing by making better choices."

[@EleanorPeterson]

​@@jededge- Just have a drink. 🍺 Cheers.

[@joemccarthy7120]

@@skierpage Fossil fuel companies aren't your enemy and those top 10 suggestions are mostly nonsense. Fossil fuel companies will continue to be necessary parts of the economy for centuries to come while people like yourself get high on your fake virtue.

[@alderom1]

great video

[@mavisharris692]

Wonderful talk. As always ❤

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

~2:00 My understanding is that coal gas is not mainly methane, but mostly CO and H2, along with traces of various other gases, many of them quite nasty. The CO alone makes it very poisonous.

[@johnfowler4820]

Increased methane - fracking. I am a vegan and think cattle are not good but look at Walter Jehne's research into the H2O cycle shows there is a way out of this with the world's farmers holding the key.

[@toyotaprius79]

Guillotining the brokers and shareholders of the food commodities for supermarkets that farmers are stressed to provide year after year with vanishing ROI?

[@tidtidy4159]

Its not the cow, its the how.

[@QUICKNEASYHANDYMAN]

Gotta get this one viral

[@geraldc867]

At one point there were 50-100 million Buffalo roaming the USA, naturally without human help. They weren't raising methane levels back then. Methane only survives about 25 years in the atmosphere, which is a very short-lived molecule.

[@skierpage]

So what? The point is natural sources and sinks of methane, just like carbon, were nicely balanced until we showed up and leaked millions of tons of methane AND intensively raise a billion animals for livestock, causing the increased methane concentration.

[@diceman199]

and there are somewhere around 80 million cows in the US now

[@theoldbuzzard5239]

But what they eat is nothing like the diet of buffalo.

[@diceman199]

@@theoldbuzzard5239 yes, buffalo eat grass and many cows eat things like silage and, overall, produce more emissions than buffalo or grass fed cows do as grassland stores carbon

[@theelectricmonk3909]

"At one point there were 50-100 million Buffalo roaming the USA, naturally without human help." - More like 30-60 million, but that was back in the 1500s, when the human population of the entire planet was less than half a billion, and very few Texans had giant pickup trucks.

[@samueletortelli4887]

Thank you for the good summary! ❤

[@Taudlitz]

you should have added chart comparing mammal biomass to really hammer how much animals we keep for food industry.

[@bgtyhnmju7]

Still subscribed. Good video, thanks for doing the work.

[@leonelbustosb]

I have lost hope. Is our turn in the fermin paradox

[@toyotaprius79]

don't be afraid of doomerism, not so much as a we're doomed no matter what we do but know that as "law abiding citizens" we're rendered and coerced to be completely helpless against the ecocidal damage caused by a few thousand billionaires and their strong ties in law making.

[@edbouhl3100]

Well, apparently few intelligent species in the galaxy survive the ‘clever and consumption’ stage of development. Must be nice to live with the few who made it to ‘wise’.

[@astoni314]

Enrico Fermi: in the summer of 1950, Fermi was engaged in casual conversation about contemporary UFO reports and the possibility of faster-than-light travel with fellow physicists Edward Teller, Herbert York, and Emil Konopinski while the group was walking to lunch. The conversation moved on to other topics, until Fermi later blurted out during lunch, "But where is everybody?" (Wikipedia.) A good reply would have been : The distance Earth's first radio transmissions have traveled is a very tiny fraction of the Milky Way's diameter, roughly 0.0009 or about 0.09%. Important Note: This calculation assumes the radio waves haven't been significantly absorbed or scattered by interstellar matter. In reality, the strength of these early signals would decrease greatly over such a distance. Perhaps other extra terrestrial beings capable of conceptual thought, science etc. cannot ever persuade the other beings capable of conceptual thought, science etc. that predictive behaviour can help beings survive longer as a whole, no matter how much money they have? Even the trillionaires.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@toyotaprius79 You fell for "If in doubt, blame the other guy"?

[@Paul-wd8cz]

11:00 you imply that the IPCC has ignored methane from permafrost. But in chapter 5 of WG1 AR6 they say "It is very unlikely that gas clathrates in terrestrial and subsea permafrost will lead to a detectable departure from the emissions trajectory during this century". They have reviewed the literature on this and reached a conclusion. ...other than that, great video as usual. Keep up the good work.

[@toyotaprius79]

Hasn't the IPCC not admitted already that in terms of timescale that many of their predictions were too conservative?

[@Paul-wd8cz]

@toyotaprius79 have they? Do you have a link to a lead author saying that? The IPCC are limited to the published scientific papers available at the time they create the assessment reports. So it is conservative by its nature. But as far as I'm aware there have been no recently published papers to show a concern with emissions from clathrates. The methane plumes that have been found in the Arctic were found to be older fossil gas.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

"lead to a detectable departure" doesn't sound like they're very concerned about it, which seems like a problem to me.

[@antonyjh1234]

Maybe this is what is meant by ignored.

[@fixeroftheinternet]

Excellent and well researched. Well done Dave. Again!

[@kevleppard9119]

The policy of dumping sewage in rivers instead of developing organic reactors is messed up, you can smell the methane @ your local sewage station!

[@Lorenzopickle]

How is it not apparent that we don’t need to consume so much beef or dairy.I’m 75 and have grandkids this situation is a real concern.We could be proactive and behave properly,please!

[@johngage5391]

Fossil fuels are 80% of the greenhouse gas pollution problem. We need to address agricultural emissions too, but the fossil fuel industry is the main culprit. A carbon fee and dividend with a CBAM is a great way to reduce climate pollution from fossil fuels.

[@skierpage]

CREDS study as reported by the BBC "Climate change: Top 10 tips to reduce carbon footprint revealed" article found switching to a vegan diet is about 0.8 tonnes less CO2 equivalent emissions a year. That's important, but less than living car-free or buying a BEV, flying less, and buying renewable energy which are all over 1.6 tonnes reduction. We can and should all make better choices.

[@antonyjh1234]

IF you overconsume sure, but 12-15 cows over 60 years is the recommended amount of meat, the issue is we are being fed a lie by putting all the emissions onto the meat, a vegan diet means more crop waste for caged animals which is why we have over consumption and chicken has barely moved in price in 20 years. If we still want gelatine to hold together toilet paper then a grown source is needed, we can use animals that are on non arable land or grow a replacement on arable land, the story of a crop based diet without taking into account wool or leather is not something we should base reality on. Eat the recommended amount of meat where most of what they eat we can't is much better than having a crop based replacement imo as an ex vegan.

[@Lorenzopickle]

Thank you all for responding to my comment,Let just say that I am well aware that I am not the sharpest pencil in the box.I just worry that I’m not doing enough for my family.

[@antonyjh1234]

In a tank of diesel is the same amount of energy as 3.2 months of my electrical energy in a sub tropical place over summer with the air con going 24-7, we use these fuels to go for a drive without a second thought. We could be going back to a time before oil but with electricity in the future, you could do more by teaching grandkids to be able to exist without oil imo and in all its forms, a very hard thing to do, if we want plastic in any form it comes from the same barrel diesel and asphalt does, take oil from your life and there isn't much left, we could be going back to a style of living like the 1800's.

[@peterbrandt7911]

That, plus the factor a meat and dairy based diet plays into the mass level extinction event we're in, made my friends, famlily and me vegans, years ago.

[@skierpage]

There are so many reasons to eat less meat. Besides the environmental benefits, it's healthier, preserves wilderness, and fewer creatures suffer and die.

[@joemccarthy7120]

@@skierpage How does it preserve wilderness? So much more land will need to be cleared to produce the crops that are supposed to replace meat. Cattle are a useful part of land management and non-vegetarian diet is healthier than vegetarian. Besides, it will make no difference to alleged AGW to eliminate meat eating.

[@mal2ksc]

Vegans are like musicians that went to Berklee: you don't have to ask, they'll tell you. I just wonder which one vegan musicians from Berklee lead with.

[@danell1s]

​@@joemccarthy7120 animals require about 10x the land to be fed to produce the same amount of human food. It's very inefficient. So we could end up with huge amounts of wilderness if we weren't using it to grow crops to turn into meat.

[@Joegreen-r1i]

How do I put this. We live in a capitalistic society animal farming is going to go the way of the wind why laboratory grown meat will end up being cheaper. Cheaper to produce cheaper to transport cheaper. More profit. And I still get my barbecued steak😅

[@AvangionQ]

Have you gotten on Bluesky yet? 🐦

[@skierpage]

It doesn't look like it (I don't know Mr. Think's real name), but ClimateNews on bsky reliably features Just Have a Think videos. I wish the excellent scientists on Climate Twitter, uh Xitter[1], would wholescale adopt Bluesky. [1] pronounced as in Xi Jinping.

[@cht2162]

With exceptions, of course, human beings do not have the innate ability to think past their next meal.

[@onetwothreeabc]

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

[@tristanridley1601]

While systemic change is always the real answer, methane is one of the few areas we have individual power. The switch from beef to even *other meats* can have more short term warming impact than anything a vegetarian could do. Switch away from 'natural gas' in your home as well. For once we have power. Please use it.

[@1o1s1s1i1e]

I live in a senior housing complex in Kingsford, Michigan and in sight of Henry Ford's old automobile plant that built Model "A's" back in the day (and gliders during WWII). There were waste dumps, one covered over and now a soccer field, and several fenced-in areas that are contaminated. Most flagpoles have a sniffer on top and they monitor air quality, and there are sheds that run 24/7 connected to the methane problem. A decade or so ago a man was loading his clothes in his gas drier and when it started his house blew up, it was after that that all buildings including garages have wind-powered vents on the roofs. When walking along the nearby river one cannot help but notice the constant bubbles coming up from the riverbed. As always thank you for these informative videos!

[@CamMcCulls-kx6zk]

It is unsuprising to me that it is low hanging fruit like agriculture that is targeted first. Generalisations can be made and applied across the world (e.g. each dairy cow produces x tonnes of methane over y time), when sometimes solutions need to be about what is going to be most effective in the local area. An urban council will ignore methane from landfills and sewage treatment when the focus is on agriculture, but these sources may never be measured.

[@robsengahay5614]

@@CamMcCulls-kx6zkSince when has animal agriculture been “low hanging fruit”? More people than ever are reluctant to be weaned off milk, let alone limit their meat consumption.

[@Debbie-henri]

I used to live near a landfill, which had a chimney burning off methane day and night. Think of all the landfills where they just don't bother.

[@DavidLawrence-i8x]

@@robsengahay5614 Agriculture is low hanging fruit because it is made up of many thousands of small business and doesn’t have the clout of Big Oil, the aero industry etc. with huge lobbying abilities and budgets. Personally speaking I more concerned by climate policy than climate change itself. That is not to say that I deny the climate is changing, more that there are those that see it as a massive money making opportunity and are less concerned if the outcome is good for the planet than they are in lining their pockets

[@robsengahay5614]

@@DavidLawrence-i8x If you think that animal agriculture is primarily small businesses then you aren’t paying attention. A lot has changed in that sector in the past 50 years and animal agriculture is a huge lobby with massive public and governmental support. That’s why animal agriculture is barely registering at COP summits and there are as many lobbyists for animal agriculture as there are for oil companies.

[@tube-vt4hl]

We are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption. JAMES HANSEN, director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, December 2005

[@MoKhera]

Great content as usual. Do SpaceX Starships emit methane at launch? And how much would be bad for us? All animals release methane domesticated or wild - yet that data is not shown because its insignificant?

[@danielfaben5838]

The topic of the launch of space craft is something of a taboo. Kind of like the results of any activity preclude the consideration of shared costs as long as I want it. People will rationalize this kind of pursuit regardless of the impacts which include punching holes in the ozone layer, massive use of fuel, extremely high dollar cost (which is thought to be a great thing by those who like GNP) and of course the placing of our dreams away from the simple ways of the rest of life on the planet on which we depend. Mind on the stars instead of here and now.

[@Ionut-bg6vw]

@@danielfaben5838 The best answer

[@boomknuffelaar]

At first I wanted to write your comment off as naive and "it could never be relevant next to airline emission". But from what I found it could soon be very relevant, with the spaceflight sector having a boom and emissions high up in the sky. It seems to be a great question for a deep dive video!

[@rimbusjift7575]

There's no carbon in rocket fuel.

[@Ionut-bg6vw]

That's why we should colonize the moon and launch from there

[@pauljmeyer1]

The methane locked up in the permafrost for millennia is already entering the atmosphere and is unstoppable.

[@turbots]

I was unsubscribed automatically, and I don't know why! Resubscribed!!

[@gregasarka4124]

you died

[@Lach.M]

No wonder why you're balled Thank you for all you do... I/We really appreciate you