246
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] running_ragged@lemmy.world 40 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Seems good. Until you realize they just shifted to ‘Natural Gas’. Aka liquid methane, which in the short term traps heat 80 times worse than CO2 for about 20 years.

Those wasn’t a move to help the environment, just to make to oil barons richer.

[-] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 36 points 5 months ago

To be fair, that’s only if it escapes. If you burn it, the reaction is CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O. Not saying it’s great and that some doesn’t escape but it’s definitely better than coal lol

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 months ago

Is it actually better than coal though? It takes very little methane leakage to be as damaging as coal. Methane is shitty and we really shouldn't celebrate any of its use.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/14/1187648553/natural-gas-can-rival-coals-climate-warming-potential-when-leaks-are-counted

[-] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 6 points 5 months ago

Maybe not if you just look at the climate change aspect but burning coal also has a significant effect on air quality due to all the random shit in it. That said I certainly wouldn’t celebrate switching to methane it’s still basically like the third worst option.

[-] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

Coal is so much worse than just the greenhouse gases. I'd much rather deal with methane leaks than clouds of cancer-causing particulates

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

from a heavy metals perspective and from a particulate perspective, yes, it's much better than coal.

[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 3 points 5 months ago

Exactly this.

I mean, if I make the following point on his behalf, he might have a leg to stand on: by increasing methane dependence we increase the likelihood of a leak. However, it's pretty clear he's got an uniformed opinion or is just shooting from the hip.

I don't like switching to NG; they should have just bit the bullet and gone solar, wind, hydro, nuclear or some combination thereof. The decision to go to NG was likely both financially (cost of shuttering coal projects rather than converting) and economically (got to appease our oil and gas overlords somehow) motivated. Just look at the fucking renewables moratorium...

Also lmao at Notely accomplishing an objective years after the fact, while Kenney and Smith were too busy flipping pancakes at the stampede.

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

Don't forget about geothermal. Could be a good option in places where you have a workforce with skills at drilling deep underground.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Natural gas is not a liquid, it's a gas. When burned it releases half the carbon that coal does and has far less other pollutants (impurities) that coal has. When it leaks yes it does have a bad chain reaction. (And in case anyone enjoy otherwise, yes I think we should have solar, wind and yes nuclear.)

[-] running_ragged@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago
[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In a pipeline it's in gas form, if shipped (on a big ship) it's in LNG form. LNG needs very low temps that you aren't going to get with pipelines.

[-] running_ragged@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I guess I misinterpreted when they talk about LNG pipelines.

That isn’t much comfort though, since gas leaks are both more likely and more difficult to contain.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Probably NG pipeline going to a LNG terminal (plant).

[-] Godort@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

This is true. Albeit, a little misleading as the vast majority of that gas will be converted to CO2 rather than released as methane, but this province wont ever do anything to help the environment as the only goal.

I'm happy to take the wins where I can. This is not the best choice, but it's still a positive change.

this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
246 points (98.4% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5243 readers
225 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS