Talk:Methane emissions

Math error: "At a carbon price of $500/ton, removing one ton of methane would earn $12,000."
One ton of methane contains 0.75 ton of carbon. The quote implies that somehow 24 tons of carbon are removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.191.0.182 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Does the change I have just made help or does it need explaining in more detail? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Should "Importance of fossil emissions" section be removed?
It seems to duplicate other articles. Or perhaps it should be rewritten as "Importance of methane emissions" based on sources like https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/04/03/governments-should-set-targets-to-reduce-methane-emissions ? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * started rewriting - please add more Chidgk1 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Too many countries listed?
As even now emissions are very uncertain I don't think the info in the country table is useful to the reader. If anyone is able to figure out the amounts for the top few countries from the IEA methane tracker I think the other countries should be deleted as unreliable detail. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * deleted table Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

== Please update with: "Acting rapidly to deploy readily available methane mitigation measures by sector can immediately slow global warming" & "Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions" ==

I think some info about these studies/reports / their conclusions should be added to the article. It would probably be best to create a new section for this info and/or add some short info about benefits to the lead.

They are currently featured in 2021 in science like so:

A study assesses benefits of fast action to reduce methane emissions when compared to slower climate change mitigation of this form. On 6 May a U.N. report assesses benefits and costs of rapidly mitigating methane emissions.

One could add something like "Benefits of fast action during this decade include a rapid reduction of global warming that may help prevent triggering tipping points of the climate system, improved air quality that would save many lives, improved food security and creation of jobs."

--Prototyperspective (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Good idea - go ahead and edit the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Methane from cows vs. fossil methane
"Methane from fossil fuels doesn't have the same characteristics as biogenetic methane (from animals). In regards to how it warms the planet up, biogenetic methane shares more traits with CO2[11]"

Above statement should be deleted, along with the reference to the unfortunate UC Davis "explainer" article it was taken from. The article is garbage. Methane is methane. It has no knowledge of its source, and it acts the same within the atmosphere, regardless of where it came from. The idiot who wrote the "explainer" article was trying to make a point on behalf of the meat industry, regarding carbon reservoirs. Fossil methane that leaks into the atmosphere is a net carbon transfer into the atmosphere. Methane from cows is from enteric fermentation of feed biomass. The author is trying to say that that makes it "carbon neutral"; the carbon content of the cow fodder came from atmospheric carbon. If the cow hadn't eaten it, it would have decayed back to CO2 anyway. That's a bogus argument, however, because uneaten fodder would have released CO2. A good fraction of the fodder eaten by cows is released as methane, which is about 80 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Biogenic methane only gets a free pass as "carbon neutral" if its burned as fuel.73.162.15.40 (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point - you should go ahead and edit the article Chidgk1 (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * deleted Chidgk1 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Removed this confusing sentence
Discuss and revise: "Abiogenic methane is stored in rocks and soil stems from the geologic processes that convert ancient biomass into fossil fuels" Confusing sentence - needs rewriting - isn't it just ancient biogenic methane? Maybe the sentence should just be deleted to avoid confusion with Abiogenic petroleum origin? Contradiction?Oceanflynn (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Moved plants section here for discussion as cites very old
Not an expert but it now seems from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304377022001085 that plants are not in themselves a source. So I moved the below here for discussion. If you know better please explain

Plants
The 2007 IPCC report said that living plants (e.g. forests) have recently been identified as a potentially important source of methane, possibly being responsible for approximately 10 to 30% of atmospheric methane. A 2006 paper calculated emissions of 62–236 Tg a−1, and "this newly identified source may have important implications". However the authors stress "our findings are preliminary with regard to the methane emission strength".

These findings have been called into question in a 2007 paper which found "there is no evidence for substantial aerobic methane emission by terrestrial plants, maximally 0.3% of the previously published values".

While the details of plant methane emissions have yet to be confirmed, plants as a significant methane source would help fill in the gaps of previous global methane budgets as well as explain large plumes of methane that have been observed over the tropics. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Pie chart?
How is plant agriculture 18% please? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)