Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
0
Reducing methane/soot.
Started by Shortpoet-GTD, Jan 13 2012 05:33 AM
emissions global warming reductions
9 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 13 January 2012 - 05:33 AM
This article makes some good points, but what about the Arctic? How could we capture
that methane?
They also speak to "quick, easy, cheap." I disagree on all 3.
"Scientists say there may a quick, cheap and easy way to curb global warming.
Rather than reducing carbon dioxide, the focus should shift to cutting soot and methane,
according to a new study by an international team.
Lowering the use of the pollutants in industry and farming could lower worldwide warming
by one degree,
The study, Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health
and Food Security, published in the journal, Science, was written by experts from North America,
Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East."
(These actions are doable, but are not cheap, easy or quick)
"There are a number of methods that might reduce methane:
· capturing the gas that escapes from coal mines and oil and gas-producing facilities
· cutting leaks from long-distance pipelines
· reducing landfill emissions
· modernising wastewater treatment plants
· frequently draining rice paddies
· lessening emissions from farm manure."
http://www.earthtime...l-warming/1760/
that methane?
They also speak to "quick, easy, cheap." I disagree on all 3.
"Scientists say there may a quick, cheap and easy way to curb global warming.
Rather than reducing carbon dioxide, the focus should shift to cutting soot and methane,
according to a new study by an international team.
Lowering the use of the pollutants in industry and farming could lower worldwide warming
by one degree,
The study, Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health
and Food Security, published in the journal, Science, was written by experts from North America,
Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East."
(These actions are doable, but are not cheap, easy or quick)
"There are a number of methods that might reduce methane:
· capturing the gas that escapes from coal mines and oil and gas-producing facilities
· cutting leaks from long-distance pipelines
· reducing landfill emissions
· modernising wastewater treatment plants
· frequently draining rice paddies
· lessening emissions from farm manure."
http://www.earthtime...l-warming/1760/
#2
Posted 13 January 2012 - 02:52 PM
I found and read quickly through the article in Science that Earthtimes reports on.......
The actual title says a lot "Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security."
It's about possible measures affecting all those things, climate and health and crops.
Earthtimes says things that aren't in the original article like:
"Rather than reducing carbon dioxide, the focus should shift to cutting soot and methane, according to a new study by an international team."
The actual Science article does say near the end:
"We emphasize that the CH4 and BC measures are both distinct from and complementary to CO2 measures. Analysis of delayed implementation of the CH4 and BC measures (fig. S3) shows that early adoption provides much larger near-term benefits but has little impact on long-term temperatures (20). Hence, eventual peak warming depends primarily on CO2 emissions, assuming air quality–related pollutants are removed at some point before peak warming"
I'm pretty sure the words easy and quick and cheap are not used in the original article.
Treehugger's piece on the article is at http://www.treehugge...ontent=My Yahoo
There is a podcast of an interview of the lead author of the Science article at http://www.sciencema...5/183/suppl/DC2
Took awhile to download, but worthwhile I thought.
Abstract of the original article here http://www.sciencema...nt/335/6065/183
Regarding arctic methane, the article included "Our analysis proceeded in steps. Initially, ~400 existing pollution control measures were screened with the..."
Meaning existing known measures and I'm pretty sure that there's no possible way of controlling those arctic methane emissions besides slowing or stopping temperature rise....
The actual title says a lot "Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security."
It's about possible measures affecting all those things, climate and health and crops.
Earthtimes says things that aren't in the original article like:
"Rather than reducing carbon dioxide, the focus should shift to cutting soot and methane, according to a new study by an international team."
The actual Science article does say near the end:
"We emphasize that the CH4 and BC measures are both distinct from and complementary to CO2 measures. Analysis of delayed implementation of the CH4 and BC measures (fig. S3) shows that early adoption provides much larger near-term benefits but has little impact on long-term temperatures (20). Hence, eventual peak warming depends primarily on CO2 emissions, assuming air quality–related pollutants are removed at some point before peak warming"
I'm pretty sure the words easy and quick and cheap are not used in the original article.
Treehugger's piece on the article is at http://www.treehugge...ontent=My Yahoo
There is a podcast of an interview of the lead author of the Science article at http://www.sciencema...5/183/suppl/DC2
Took awhile to download, but worthwhile I thought.
Abstract of the original article here http://www.sciencema...nt/335/6065/183
Regarding arctic methane, the article included "Our analysis proceeded in steps. Initially, ~400 existing pollution control measures were screened with the..."
Meaning existing known measures and I'm pretty sure that there's no possible way of controlling those arctic methane emissions besides slowing or stopping temperature rise....
#4
Posted 13 January 2012 - 10:14 PM
The efforts to reduce soot have come out in a few countries and where I have seen them, have been introduced by conservative governments seeking to deflect the focus to air quality away from climate change. My personal opinion is that they do this it make it seem like they are focusing on the environment but at the less significant of the problems. By doing so, they get a chance to quiet down critics who don't want to be seen as "opposing" an environmental initiative. It is a rather sneaky approach to be sure.
#5
Posted 14 January 2012 - 03:36 AM
jasserEnv, on 13 January 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:
The efforts to reduce soot have come out in a few countries and where I have seen them, have been introduced by conservative governments seeking to deflect the focus to air quality away from climate change. My personal opinion is that they do this it make it seem like they are focusing on the environment but at the less significant of the problems. By doing so, they get a chance to quiet down critics who don't want to be seen as "opposing" an environmental initiative. It is a rather sneaky approach to be sure.
1-How is reducing soot "sneaky"
and
2-What governments-what countries? Do you have links for that statement?
(Opinions are always welcome but statements to facts should be verified. We want to post facts on this site
for our readers.)
#6
Posted 15 January 2012 - 11:17 AM
Reducing soot is sneaky because the technologies for doing it are already well established so getting companies to install equipment to remove soot is a relatively easy task. At the same time, incentives provided for doing it go to established companies so it is a good way for politicians to allow existing companies to be compensated for something that the regulations say they are supposed to do in the first place anyway. All the while the politicians can sell their efforts to be green while not actually targeting climate change at all.
As far as countries are concerned, I know that Canada's government has been playing the deflection game. However with this soot story, everything older seems to have disappeared from the searches.
Also think Bush's "Clean Skies" initiative which is essentially pushed by the energy industry. He announced it in 2002 and it is still trying to manipulate the discussion away from CO2 emissions.
http://www.austinchr...02-02-22/84742/
http://www.cleanskie...rge-w-bush.html
http://www.cleanskies.org/
I also won't make any statements of fact any more because I don't have a rolodex of supporting evidence for everything I read just in case it might come into a discussion... It is just too much work to play lawyer in the context of forum discussions.
As far as countries are concerned, I know that Canada's government has been playing the deflection game. However with this soot story, everything older seems to have disappeared from the searches.
Also think Bush's "Clean Skies" initiative which is essentially pushed by the energy industry. He announced it in 2002 and it is still trying to manipulate the discussion away from CO2 emissions.
http://www.austinchr...02-02-22/84742/
http://www.cleanskie...rge-w-bush.html
http://www.cleanskies.org/
I also won't make any statements of fact any more because I don't have a rolodex of supporting evidence for everything I read just in case it might come into a discussion... It is just too much work to play lawyer in the context of forum discussions.
#7
Posted 15 January 2012 - 03:09 PM
Don't take offense, because none was intended. It's just that we want to try to post facts here.
And thanks for the links.
And thanks for the links.
#8
Posted 16 January 2012 - 06:56 AM
I wasn't offended. I know that supporting an argument with supporting facts is the only way to prevent hearsay. It just becomes difficult to provide supporting evidence in many cases especially when most of the content is only filed in this old brain and not a conveniently stored link to a site.
#9
Posted 16 January 2012 - 11:42 AM
jasserEnv, on 16 January 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:
I wasn't offended. I know that supporting an argument with supporting facts is the only way to prevent hearsay. It just becomes difficult to provide supporting evidence in many cases especially when most of the content is only filed in this old brain and not a conveniently stored link to a site.
#10
Posted 16 January 2012 - 08:01 PM
I don't think taking measures to reduce airborne soot or methane emissions is "sneaky."
For a first-world country to take these measures and not also take CO2 reduction measures is irresponsible and maybe even sneaky.
If I have it right the countries that have the biggest soot problem aren't first-world countries though, instead they are China and India and a lot of smaller third-world countries. The US and other firstworld countries already control soot to a large degree. Could do more, but a lot has been done.
While the means of controlling soot are well known and mostly aren't that expensive, getting control measures adopted aren't necessarily that easy. Agricultural burning? Getting farmers to stop is to get them to change the way they've always done things. Not easy. Replacing traditional charcoal kilns with modern low-soot ones? Again, trying to get a traditional method replaced that does provide a livlihood to people. Not easy.
Another air pollution thread on this forum refers to San Joaquin Valley air pollution here in California. Some of that soot is from older diesel construction and farm and oilfield equipment. A lot of grandfathered exemptions. Not that big a deal originally, but with increased population and increased long-distance diesel truck traffic, not acceptable anymore. Hard to get regulations changed though to ban the grandfathered smoky equipment though, political connections.
Methane emissions controls are harder, but some are well known. Just stopping leaks from pipelines and refineries and wells would be a good beginning.
The article in Science that's referred to in the Earthtimes piece makes the point that controlling soot and methane is complementary to controlling carbon dioxide and may be more cost effective for some countries since there are human health benefits associated with soot control.
For a first-world country to take these measures and not also take CO2 reduction measures is irresponsible and maybe even sneaky.
If I have it right the countries that have the biggest soot problem aren't first-world countries though, instead they are China and India and a lot of smaller third-world countries. The US and other firstworld countries already control soot to a large degree. Could do more, but a lot has been done.
While the means of controlling soot are well known and mostly aren't that expensive, getting control measures adopted aren't necessarily that easy. Agricultural burning? Getting farmers to stop is to get them to change the way they've always done things. Not easy. Replacing traditional charcoal kilns with modern low-soot ones? Again, trying to get a traditional method replaced that does provide a livlihood to people. Not easy.
Another air pollution thread on this forum refers to San Joaquin Valley air pollution here in California. Some of that soot is from older diesel construction and farm and oilfield equipment. A lot of grandfathered exemptions. Not that big a deal originally, but with increased population and increased long-distance diesel truck traffic, not acceptable anymore. Hard to get regulations changed though to ban the grandfathered smoky equipment though, political connections.
Methane emissions controls are harder, but some are well known. Just stopping leaks from pipelines and refineries and wells would be a good beginning.
The article in Science that's referred to in the Earthtimes piece makes the point that controlling soot and methane is complementary to controlling carbon dioxide and may be more cost effective for some countries since there are human health benefits associated with soot control.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users