Home | About | Donate

As Obama Moves to Cap Methane Emissions, New Study Reveals They're Higher Than We Thought


#1


#2

Lovelock didn't say this, that I know of, but he should have: Every office and computer --technical, legislative, business, or executive-- involved with the climate disaster should have a sign on it: "It's much worse and moving much faster than you think!"


#4

Why wait?

Google:

"Home Wind Turbines"

and

"Home Solar Panel Kits".

Lets put our money where our mouths are.


#6

The energy cabals systematically misrepresent the methane emissions including in hydroelectric dams

HYDROELECTRIC DAMS IN BRAZILIAN AMAZONIA AS SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES
Philip M. Fearnside, MS, PhD (Michigan)


#7

post cancelled


#8

Ingenious, thank you.


#9

Anything that goes through a chemical change emitts something. So, if that is known by people that have taken high chemistry and above, then how could anything be over looked?


#10

A major component of cap and trade schemes incorporates burning natural gas (derived from fracking) as the supposedly clean alternative to coal. This article debunks that delusion.


#11

Specifically, do not buy meat products. As consumers, that's the most powerful, most effective action we can take if our goal is to reduce global warming.


#12

Sounds like you need a good patent lawyer.


#13

Artificial "reform"

From natural gas bags


#14

One has to wonder how the EPA comes up with the numbers and percentages it puts in the rules to reduce methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. The numbers always seem to come up well short of the bold steps needed.


#15

Kudos for the poster, "Kem Patrick" who spoke about methane and its threats often in these discussion-threads.

From the article:

"Rather, Hauter added, "these regulations would wrongly promote natural gas as a ‘clean’ alternative to oil and coal. These weak regulations leave the impression that pursuing natural gas benefits the environment, providing a justification for continuing to drill and frack."

Ms. Hauter 100% nailed the P.R. tactic. There's so much talk about the U.S being energy independent and our national economy improving; but if the scar tissue done unto this nation's geographical landmass were to be properly exposed along with just how many water tables, rivers, and animal populations have been compromised... a very different portrait of WEALTH (and what it's constituted by) would emerge.


#16

Hi there,

Can you justify the claim that the meat industry creates more global warming than the fossil fuels industry? You have made these claims more than once. But to me, the claims are not self evident. Your words are no more persuasive than the words of Tony Abbott.

The reason everyone is not with you, is that like me, I suspect that many dont quite believe them. You may well have done so before, but instead of repeating these claims, you should take the opportunity to provide links and establish them.

Where I live, cows, goats and sheep eat things that grow naturally and that humans cant eat. What can you say about the GM and the mono-culture of vegetables and grains that will have to replace this? Seriously, Monsanto would love you. Doesn't this agriculture deplete the soil and dont the herbicides used poison it?

Also, how will humans get their protein?


#17

Yes. I think if you push hard in that direction you will reveal the truth about the EPA.


#18

Since Nixon in 1968 captured the EPA it has zero credibility. I talked 8 days ago with a women who worked there and she said it's just an industrial clearinghouse and a shell of an agency. Basically, it's a zombie gov't agency. Go figure.


#19

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

I get my protein from beans, grains, seeds, nuts, kale, and other plant foods.


#20

Protein intake has never been a problem on a veggie diet. Many veggies provide ample protein. Vegetarians live longer and have fewer diseases than meat eaters. Many world-class athletes are vegetarian. Americans are severely overdosed on protein. Accordingly, concerns about protein intake are specious. You can Google these facts easily. If you also Google "meat or fossil fuels which is worse?" you will find multiple articles from many different sources, from PETA to Scientific American. Those articles say that about 51% of all greenhouse gases come from the agricultural industry, of which meat production plays the largest role. The meat industry is the largest industry in the United States. It kills 10 billion animals in the U.S. every year; that is a statistic indicating that the meat industry has gone berserk and is destroying the environment, not to mention the health of its customers. The feedlots dump tons of untreated sewage into the Mississippi River, creating the dead zone in the Gulf...I could go on for hours but the outrageous damage done to the earth by the meat industry is well-documented and Google makes research very easy. I tried to provide a link to a specific article, but the link only goes to the website, not the specific article, so I did not include it. Again, however, the Internet is full of articles easily establishing that a meat eater riding a bicycle does more harm to the environment then a vegetarian driving an SUV. Of course, in real life, it is we vegetarians who drive a Nissan LEAF and the meat eaters who drive the SUVs.


#21

Here in Florida most of the methane comes from our governor, Rick Scott, and our Legislators. Shut them up and global warming goes way, way down.


#22

It's probably worse than this. I think that I'll write next year's headline right now for you.

" 'Dry wells' exposed as a major source of methane emissions"

We already know from satellite images that major fracking areas are huge methane emitters. We also know that when dry wells are drilled, millions of cubic feet of methane "natural" gas are released from the rock, but this gas never reaches the pipeline. Putting two and two together, the millions of cubic feet of methane gas somehow gets into the earth's atmosphere, probably through some random crack in the rock leading to the earth's surface.

Dry wells are considered to be part of the fracking business. It might be that if political pressure were applied, the fracking industry would lower their overpressures underground so as to create fewer dry wells and fewer methane releases. Somebody should look into this improvement, even though it falls into the "slightly better than nothing" category, or "the public wants what the public gets" category.