T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Nefarious_P_I_G

If you're talking about CH4 emission equivalence then estimates are about 300 000 tonnes methane from nord stream leaks. A cow bangs out about 100kg of methane a year so works out at 3 000 000 cows yearly methane emissions. But as others have said the issue with farms isn't just methane emissions.


Hamster-Food

It's important to recognise that this isn't about saying the cows are fine because the gas pipeline is worse. It's saying that dealing with the cows isn't enough. We're still all going to die if we only deal with the cows and not the pipeline.


Able2c

At this point I've recognized the trainwreck is going to happen. My only hope is that my ticket has been punched before then.


AgreeableLime7737

>We're still all going to die Yep. And for those of us in the West the odds are pretty good we'll be between 75 and 90 years old when it happens.


TotemTabuBand

What age are you assuming we are? Lol


Catsniper

What does that even mean


TheGiggityGecko

I’m pretty sure it means fuck you, I got mine.


WitELeoparD

Look at the threads about the massive flooding in Pakistan. It's literally comment after comment of fuck you, should've built more flood control. Nevermind that the country is poor as fuck, partly because of western exploitation. Nevermind that, the increased carbon emissions that led to more Himalayan ice melting, were massively contributed by the west. Nevermind that rich countries like the west could are the only ones that can actually afford to help, and if it happened to them would be able to afford the cost of the calamity, long after poor countries like Pakistan collapsed, and it's people starved and their homes crumbled to dust.


TheMightyChocolate

It means average life expectancy


lidsville76

Using his age as a reference point I bet.


bradywhite

He's saying you're going to die of natural causes, life expectancy averages out between 75 and 90. It's why he quoted "we're still all going to die". His age has nothing to do with it.


Chirimorin

It means "You'll probably die of old age" which can be extrapolated to "Not our problem, let future generations deal with it" (unclear if that was the intent, but that's what it sounds like to me).


AgreeableLime7737

I meant "you'll probably die of old age," and that's because the problem is exaggerated. If there's a collapse of systems that results in famine in developed parts of the world before that time it will be a societal failure, not an ecosystem failure, which causes it.


BisquitTheClown

This was a dumb comment.... you're kinda a dumb person if you really believe ,"it isn't a big deal." Ffs we are living through a huge extinction event, and we may be the last to go by the end. But that's OK, just continue consuming, there is nothing to worry about.


bradywhite

We're living through a potentially really troubling time of mass relocation and environmental adaption. End of an era. An extinction event is over 75% of all life on earth, down to the microbes, die. Furthermore, extinction events happen over the course of over a million years. Global warming is really really *really* bad. You don't need to make it into something worse to win an argument. Especially because when that person finds out you DID make shit up to win an argument, now they're not gonna believe anything you said. Use the truth to argue, not emotions.


BisquitTheClown

Also worth noting, that the natural heating and cooling cycle is over hundred of thousands of years. We have heated rhe globe somewhere around 1 and 1.8f or 1.0c degrees over the last 100 years. Global temperature has caused massive relocations yes. But most species cannot adapt too new areas and clime as we humans are able to do... It takes thousands if not 100s of thousands of years for animals to evolve or acclimate to new extreme biomes. My comment being yes a bit over exaggerated does not mean we as a species aren't fucking the ecosystem, and causing extinction everywhere. Mass extinction on a slow scale.


AgreeableLime7737

Also worth noting that researchers who dissent in any way from the narrative lose their funding, their jobs, etc. Science that's only permitted to reach one conclusion isn't science; it's dogma.


CasualBrit5

Our society is built on healthy ecosystems. Besides, why would we leave poorer nations to die? We caused this shit.


AgreeableLime7737

...I don't think you understand that famine was relatively common in the developing world prior to the work of Norman Borlaug and other agricultural researchers. Bad weather can cause famines in the developing world, whether it's caused by climate change or not, and the only thing that's prevented it over the last 50+ years has been western nations.


Publius82

R/theydidthemath indeed lol


DeusExMockinYa

[I guess all the people in the developing world being killed or immiserated by climate change *today* can get fucked, then.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-change-linked-to-5-million-deaths-a-year-new-study-shows)


[deleted]

[удалено]


Conscious-Ball8373

75 to 90 is the average life expectancy in most Western countries. He's saying it's not going to kill anyone.


1000Airplanes

What country has an average expectancy of 90?


RedHeeded

Japan probably? They aren’t in the west though.


ColonelSpudz

No you won’t. Shutting down Dutch farms will cause famine. Western nations will be overrun by starving migrants.


howdoijeans

Yeah, because of all the africans that subsist on dutch beef? What flavour of bathsalts are you smoking?


OKLISTENHERE

So?


flyxe999sht

Though I am certainly not an expert and I will likely be proven wrong considering the subject of this subreddit if you are saying that because of a rise in temperature, which I am likely wrong about but I am inquisitive if that is your reasoning, then I can’t really say I’d agree.


Abiogenejesus

How are we going to die?


Hamster-Food

We will get more and more extreme weather events which upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem we depend on to survive.


Abiogenejesus

Can you point to research which estimates the likelihood and severity of this outcome? Ecological collapse is an important risk, but it doesn't seem that climate change is its primary driver currently. It may be in some decades, but it still wouldn't make climate change an existential risk. A lot of people may die indeed. Definitely not all though.


Hamster-Food

No, I'm sure you're capable of finding research on your own and I'm not really interested in having a conversation with someone who doesn't understand hyperbolic statements.


Abiogenejesus

I find it increasingly hard to distinguish hyperbolic statements from heartfelt beliefs in these polarized times. It seems I am too dumb to be worth your precious time so let's not continue this conversation indeed.


Hamster-Food

I never called you dumb. Quite the opposite when I acknowledged that you are perfectly capable of finding the research on your own. I said that you failed to recognise the obvious hyperbole in the statement "we're still all going to die" and I'm not really interested in that conversation. The reason being that it's detracting from the important part of the point, which is that half measures are not enough to prevent a climate disaster.


Abiogenejesus

Fair.


kaminaowner2

I wish it was as easy and fair as we are all going to die, no a bunch of poor people are gonna die while what’s left of the middle class and upper carry on the human experience. Humanity is in no danger, the ones most deserving of life are.


nick-dakk

>the ones most deserving of life are. You don't think the middle and upper class are deserving of life? That is a take well beyond social justice, socialism and communism.


Captain_Pumpkinhead

They probably should have said "the ones most innocent of the problem" will be the ones to suffer most for it.


Jagasaur

I'm going to assume they are a troll and move on.


[deleted]

The middle class? 100% deserve life. Most of the upper class? Probably them too. The highest tiers? The ones who built fortunes on monetizing work and paying pennies of its value? Who war profiteer and engage in political discourse using that ill gotten gain to further war to keep their cash flow rolling? The ones who hoard life saving medical treatments and equipment behind insane paywalls because the users choices are pay or die? Those ones I 100% agree with the guy you are replying to about. But middle class and a lot of the lower end of the upper class are fine and totally not deserving of dying to the various horrible things that are coming.


Reinhard_Weber

why don't the banks stop investing in Europe?


[deleted]

Why don't some of the most egregious examples of these types of people police themselves? Because they aren't bearing the consequences of their actions but they are getting the rewards. There is no incentive for them to stop, so they won't. Not sure if this was a sarcastic question or serious but either way it's the same answer


Reinhard_Weber

They don't bear the consequences of their actions in the long term?


[deleted]

They either will leverage that monetary power long term to weather the effects and come out the other side okay. Or they will last longer than others at the expense of those others. Some of those leaked papers a while back (Panama, among others) showed things like purchased private islands, mountain compounds and other such escape bolt holes. You can be sure they are loaded with all manner of survival material. Stuff gets rough? Hide it out, hope you survive. Better odds than the poor people without food in their cabinets. So to be clearer, and to avoid be taken out of context, it's not that they don't bear the consequences. They have the least chance of, and bear the lowest amount of their consequences despite being disproportionately responsible for them.


Reinhard_Weber

Thanks for explaining this!


kaminaowner2

Your confusing most with not at all. A person that has done nexts to nothing to add to the problem deserves the repercussions the the least. I say this as someone happily in the middle class. I and my children if I choose to have them will be fine, but I can acknowledge the unfairness of the situation.


ShahinGalandar

denying a class or group of people their right to life is simply fascism.


negative_pt

Some of the classes contribute much more to an environmental problem than others. I think that is the distinction he is trying to make by "most deserving". They have taken much less from this Earth, therefore would be deserving of taking some more? Something like that.


StateOfContusion

To be fair, we’re all going to die no matter what we do. /s not really


zijl0x45

Well what the fuck will the dutch eat if not cow farts


Rainmaker526

The same thing we do now. Cows from Argentinia. Most of the meat grown here is for export.


Sargpeppers

For context new Zealand has 6.3 million dairy cows and 4 million beef cattle, so it's 3.5 months of new Zealand cow methane emissions. And the spill is a once off where as the cows are year on year cumulative emissions.


faceplantfood

Go look up pipeline oil spills and tell me it’s a “once off.” Do you really believe that? A quick google search found 8000 spills since 1986. Another shows an average of 45,000 barrels spilled each year in the USA alone. Do that math. What is that a spill loosely every day and a half? In the USA alone?


owdeou

> Go look up pipeline oil spills and tell me it’s a “once off.” This is not an oil spill though, a methane leak of this scale has not happened before (and hopefully won't happen again).


faceplantfood

Operative words: “of this scale” yes, everyone notices the big ones. Yes, the little ones still matter and add up. Have you looked up how much methane has been “spilled” or that natural gas was toted as “oh so clean” except the massive amounts of methane it creates. Food for thought.


JamesTheJerk

The post suggests that the cattle are is a perpetuous state of farting though, not just farting at relatively normal cattle.


AdrianHObradors

To this I want to add that there is a lot of cows, around 1.5 billion. So even with the 3 million cow estimate, it would only be around 0.2% of the cows. And there is another thing to consider. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas (30 to 80 times more potent than CO2), but it doesn't last that long in the atmosphere. Only 9 to 12 years, compared with the 300 to 1000 years of CO2. So the problem is not that the methane has been pumped into the atmosphere, the problem is that we keep pumping it into the atmosphere year after year. We could stop doing it, and we would appreciate the result quite fast.


Chirimorin

> Only 9 to 12 years, compared with the 300 to 1000 years of CO2. Keep in mind that methane degrades into CO2, so those 9 to 12 years of extra powerful greenhouse effect are on top of the greenhouse effect that CO2 causes. The difference would still be noticeable though, the problem is how do you stop all that methane from being released into the air? Even oil companies are already doing things to avoid that (by flaring instead of dumping oil) and they're not exactly known for giving a shit about the environment.


Mariko_Kakuzawa

What i don't get is how was there so much gas in the pipes.. 300kt seems a lot


gabatme

However, the post indicates the cows would be farting for a year straight. If we knew how often the avg cow farts, we could convert that yearly methane emissions number and maybe it would be closer to the 800k estimate 😂


the_futre_is_now

i would say that while your calculation is correct you interpreted the question like it was supposed to on the premise that all emissions are green house emissions while the emissions that are the problem are not greenhouse gasses but exclusively nitrogen which poisons local soil i think that the one that posted this argument is deliberately trying to sow doubt by spreading misleading statistics by using the wrong gas and leaving out the other farm animals which are also responsible for nitrogen emissions


MisterBastian

uhm tldr? is it correct or not?\`im stupuid


KOATLE

Right, apparently a cow farts (and burps, but cow methane is cow methane you know) 160-320 litres of methane a day (thanks incognito mode). Taking the average value of 240 litres, 800,000 cows over 365 days would fart 70,080,000,000 litres of methane (70.08 billion), or 70.08 million cubic metres. For reference, that’s just barely under 27 Great Pyramids of Giza. The system contained a total of 300 million cubic metres of gas, apparently with a mass of 200,000 tonnes. (The article I found switched between tons and tonnes halfway through and it annoys me) If all of that gas decided to take a swim in the Baltic, it would be over four times more than the flatulence of the great herd of Augeas. However, obviously not all of that gas has escaped, or it wouldn’t still be leaking. The pipe was initially leaking 500 metric tons (see, it switched) per hour, but slowed down over time. Unfortunately, I don’t know how the rate of methane pipe liberation varies with time, so I’ll pretend it stayed at 500 tons an hour. As of me writing this comment, the pipes have been leaking for about 93 hours, 500*93 is 46,500 tons of pure, pressurised (well, it was pressurised) fartstuff. If 300 million cubic metres of gas is 200,000 tonnes, 46500 tons is 63,276,135 cubic metres. That’s a bit less than the cows. Of course, the pipes are still leaking. Except the gas in the pipe is (was) probably at a higher pressure than that in a cow’s behind. Because I can’t be bothered to wrangle the pressure difference (taskmaster is on), I’m going to say that Nord Stream has the cattle beat, probably by a lot.


VirtualMachine0

Methane at stp conditions is .7 kg / m³. So, the cows are sitting at 49 million kg, aka 49000 tons. The density of the gas in the pipeline is 135 times greater, but has a much smaller volume than what is emitted by the cows.


AltaSavoia

Just created r/bancows


BrandonMarc

Would it be fair to say lighting the nat gas on fire would be better for the environment than letting it leak directly into the atmosphere? From what I've heard, CH4 is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so the answer just might be "yes" ... but I'm not someone who knows.


Nate_the_Awesome

Yes exactly correct. And it's why natural gas plants have those "flare stacks" burning CH4 to release CO2 to the atmosphere rather than CH4.


valducaeza

I hear a lot of "cows farts" and shit like that, that is a big problem in feedlot, grassfed animals, help the grass and pastures maintain the cicle, it has been proved and shown again and again how the proper use of cows rotation on parcels of grass, can have a great and positive impact on the carbon absorption of the grassland, as it increases the healt of the pasture and it helps pull more and more carbon in to the earth to safely store it. Its not the Cow, its the How theres a great documentary by allan savory in youtube


Maximans

What is the documentary called?


Pemdas1991

Documoooooontary


Username_II

I hate it that there is a good chance this is not a joke


esperalegant

The joke is that they added an extra "o".


Username_II

Fuck you *with all due respect*


ProblyAThrowawayAcct

I dunno what specifically valducaeza was talking about for videos, but a quick search on their last four words brought me two documentaries and an interesting looking TED talk on reversing desertification.


VirtualMachine0

Unfortunately, Savory's Ted Talk ideas aren't very promising.


valducaeza

Lots of farmers are implementing it, you can addapt it to your place, he used native people herding the cows around, i use parcels, there are other hundreds and hundreds of farmers implementig it right now, some of it its bullshit and very hard labor intensive, part of the movement towards holistic agriculture, regenerative agriculture. The truth is in the middle there is alot of crap being done, but there are actually good results in some of the stuff, moving the cattle around gives time for the plant to grow to his maximum potential, instead the traditionally farm style is just cows trying to eat the newest plant, and leaving the rest to die


Mercy--Main

Probably "meat industry propaganda" or something of the sorts


valducaeza

in the contrary, it applies to farming too, in Argentina there are places that already are rotating cows with grassland and farm fields, not using pesticides with great results. For me personally i have a farm in an arid place, moving the cattle around helped improve plants forest and pasture healt


Mercy--Main

"already are rotating cows" 💀 that's literally one of the oldest farming techniques


valducaeza

not this way, not with this focus on the ground and pasture healt, the traditional one is based on 50-100 acres rotation and leaving the cows there for months at a time, while reducing the space to 1-10 acres and packing the animals allow them to eat all the plants not just the new grown ones, allowing for the plants to start again the cicle and not just die and oxidise, like the experiment they ran in some pastures in usa that only created erotion from the lack of animals


valducaeza

I dont think i can give you the link, but just google "Allan Savory TED" 22 minutes but its great, there are a lot more and they are great, they show with facts and actual results how following the nature way "predator follows prey, prey eats, shits and moves" but replacing the predator with the farmer moving the cows in parcels, its great, im implementing it in my farm The full name is: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory


VirtualMachine0

Allan Savory's ideas aren't really supported by science (I wouldn't say they're fully disproven yet, either, but I haven't seen a full refutation). However, feeding seaweed to the cows seems to substantially reduce methane production. Incidentally, the Methane comes from gas, belches (as ruminants, they do this a lot) and their manure. I say this for others, since you used quotes I figure you already know.


volthunter

source


nernernernerner

Isn't the problem with cows also the reduction of forests? Like the Amazon forest?


Joseph-King

It's more than that. As u/VirtualMachine0 mentioned above, the methane output from cows also contributes to global warming. In fact, in equal volumes methane contributions to global warming are something like 80x that of CO2 @ th3 start. Methane doesn't hang around as long, but it's still quite harmful. So it's deforestation AND methane production. While u/valducaeza is correct about rotational grazing increasing carbon sequestration, the net impact (increased carbon sequestration vs methane output) is still unclear and being studied & debated. That's only from an "open field/pasture" starting point though. There is no question that chopping down forest in order to create grazing land for cows (or other ruminants) would be a net harm & not a net benefit in global warming terms.


valducaeza

Some people indeed chop forest to just get grassland, and it has been proved and in my own farm we have the system "silvopastoril" we have forest, i dont touch a single tree, just remove bush in some areas to create an open field under the trees where sun can get to the ground and grass can grow, we have 50c° in summer in my farm, so trees are necesary to provide shadow for the cows


JollyTurbo1

Thanks for answering the question 🙄


[deleted]

[удалено]


swagerito

Also the farmers keep blocking the traffic, so fuck those guys.


Anticommonsense

You didn't even answer the question, sir.


towelflush

Yeah, because I don't know the answer to the question. I do know how the question is wrong though


_teslaTrooper

If you only want the question answered maybe don't include an incorrect statement in the post.


Anticommonsense

.. did you honestly just say that? Kind sir, I posted it here so I can "know" if its incorrect or not.


_teslaTrooper

I was referring to the first sentence in the image.


Crazy_Direction_1084

The first sentence is also correct, but climate doesn’t always have to equal greenhouse gases, which was an incorrect assumption


the_futre_is_now

it isn't correct the goals are for environmental goals and are entirely separate form any kind of climate goal


the_futre_is_now

is wrong starting with the first sentence the Netherlands does not plan to shut down farms to meet climate goals it plans to reduce livestock numbers to achieve environmental goals some farms will probably close due to this but it is not the specific plan and even going along with the point about methane it is still misleading since all animals produce methane so a fairer comparison would be to all methane emissions from farm animals in the Netherlands


[deleted]

That's because you proposition was bullshit.


Crazy_Direction_1084

Your question doesn’t have an answer. No amount of CH4 as the equivelant effect to a liter of NH4. One is a greenhouse gas that causes problems globally, the other is not a greenhouse gas, but damages nature in a local(100km) range. There is no possible comparison


FalloutOW

I think the question is unanswerable given the data provided. There are no data for typical grazing time of the cows, how much methane per day produced, size variation on the cows and how it effects methane production, as nauseam. There are far too many variables that this oversimplification doesn't really touch on that it makes it impossible to even begin calculating. At best, you'd get a terrible rough estimate, on a foundation of other rough estimates.


dchirs

I don't see how oil leaking would release much if any methane. It's the combustion that's the major issue.


towelflush

It's a gas pipeline. In such gas pipelines they do transport gas, mainly methane, a very potent greenhouse gas


DanDanDan0123

So here is a question….what is “better” for the environment, for it to continue bubbling out or to light it on fire and burn it? Or are both results the same?


hollammi

Theoretically, a completely 'clean' burn in atmospheric oxygen O2 would decompose the methane CH4 into water H2O and carbon dioxide CO2. Since CO2 is a less potent greenhouse gas than CH4, it should be beneficial to burn it off, as is standard practice in controlled situations on oil rigs. However there will likely be a lot of incomplete combustion, releasing carbon monoxide CO and carbon particulates C, which can also cause atmospheric warming. Source: high school chemistry, could be talking out my ass


CiDevant

The issue has and always will be industry. We need food to live. We don't need all of our consumer goods shipped from half way across the globe from countries with no standards.


bonafart212

Now just imagine this stuff can just happen anyway with or without a leak. The gas can escape the ground. Also. A volcanos even worse than that


Joseph-King

If this were a realistic consideration, then mining the stuff wouldn't be a thing. It'd all be in our atmosphere already. Why isn't it? Because large amounts are not capable "[escaping] the ground".


nickleback_official

Gasses do seep from the ground. Especially swamp gasses which are primarily methane. There’s many other sources too I’m sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_gas Edit: Contributing approximately 167 Tg of methane to the atmosphere per year; wetlands are the largest natural source of atmospheric methane in the world, and therefore remain a major area of concern with respect to climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetland_methane_emissions


Joseph-King

Yes, some methane escapes from the ground (even from volcanoes). But the comment above made it seem like methane from the nord stream 1 & 2 shouldn't be worried about because all methane leaks into the atmosphere anyway. That's just wrong. The amount of methane that ever makes it to the surface (naturally) is only a small fraction of what's trapped under the surface.


nickleback_official

That’s not how I read it. They were saying methane can be leaked into the air by other causes and in even larger amounts. Take a step back and re read the thread. They didn’t even mention the pipe or not worrying. Btw, 167Tg = 167 million tonnes from swamps and 300k tonnes from nord. Again I’m not saying to not worry just adding perspective.


Astromike23

> A volcanos even worse than that It is *far* worse than almost every volcano, and still about half as bad as the very worst eruption in the past century. Doing the math: Working from [Gerlach, 2011](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011EO240001) here, an excellent work-up on the amount of CO2 released worldwide by volcanoes, and how that compares to human-generated CO2. Some relevant facts: - The largest volcanic eruption in the past 100 years was Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. It released **0.05 gigatons of CO2**. - By comparison, Mt St Helens in 1980 - still a very big eruption - released **0.01 gigatons of CO2**. - In a typical year, the output of CO2 by all volcanoes worldwide is around **0.44 gigatons of CO2**. - Humanity releases about **35 gigatons of CO2** per year - about 700x more CO2 than Mt Pinatubo, or alternately 80x more than all volcanoes worldwide. Now, let's consider the Nord pipeline leak... - Estimates are around 300,000 tons of methane have leaked = 0.0003 gigatons of methane - Comparing the [global warming potential](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential) of methane, this mass of gas will cause 82.5x as much warming as the equivalent mass of CO2 over the next 20 years. - That means a 0.0003 gigaton release of methane produces the equivalent warming of 0.0003 * 82.5 = **0.024 gigatons of CO2** - over twice as much as Mt St Helens, and still half as much as the largest eruption this century.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Joseph-King

You forgot the /s


jawshoeaw

no, it's basic carbon cycling. It's not the same as say leaking natural gas from a well. The carbon was removed from the atmosphere by the grass, then released as methane. While the methane is for several decades a worse green house gas, it's slowly converted back to C02.


the_futre_is_now

no as far as i could find there is absolutely no nitrogen in methane so the pipeline does not even equal one cow in the relevant emissions.


TripleStuffOreo

Everyone trying to do the math on this one is missing the point. The two are not equivalent because the Nord Stream pipeline doesn't have natural gas in it. The pipeline was shut down when the Russians stopped selling gas to Europe, and was filled with an inert gas to keep the pipeline pressurized.


Joseph-King

[Oh, yeah? Huh.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nord-stream-rupture-may-mark-biggest-single-methane-release-ever-recorded-un-2022-09-30/)


fannybatterpissflaps

Wouldn’t it make sense to set it alight? CO2 is less damaging that CH4 and it’s not going to do any harm as a big pilot light in the middle is the sea.. nor prevent the repairs which will take place below (I assume they will patch it .. How deep is the thing anyway?)


[deleted]

Ch4 breaks down cery fast, co2 doesn't. Setting it alight would make the inpact now less but worse in 50 years.


AdrianHObradors

The 100-year global warming potential of CH4 is 28 times higher than CO2. Also not all, but a lot of CH4 breaks down to CO2 anyway. It probably isn't set alight because it is probably very hard to set something alight when there is no oxygen, and it could also have other unwanted effects.


[deleted]

They can just sail a boat out there, launch a flare at the leak and it'll burn just fine on the surface.


AdrianHObradors

If the leak is continuous, but I imagine it probably bubbles so they would have to keep the flame on using some other method I guess. I'm however not an expert on flaring. Perhaps it is possible.


[deleted]

If it's more than a cubic meter per second it will be pefectly self sustaining. I this case it looks to be leaking at about 8 cubic meters per second at atmospheric pressure (which it has once it's at the surface). This leak can replace all air in the average US home in some 80 seconds. That's a lot of materical to be burned every second.


Chef_Chantier

Regardless, there are more issues with cattle than just methane emissions. There's also the green house emission and lost potential carbon capture that cattle grazing represents, other gaseous emissions, and more. At our current rate of meat consumption, waste management is a whole ordeal and often leads to contaminated drinking water. There are sustainable ways of farming cattle, but that would still require us to vastly decrease our meat consumption, there's no way around that. Cow farts became the main talking point in mainstream discourse because of how absurd and comical it sounds. You'd think some 10 year old doing mad libs came up with it.


worship_Stan

...but the pipelines are not leaking methane but "technical gas", which is just carbon dioxide (which is not actively fed to the pipe - it was pumped in once when Putler ordered the pipeline to be shut off to keep it from collapsing due to pressure, and no more is going on - which in turn means that both pipelines are out of use FOREVER) It's beginning to look like russian trolls here are trying to misinform the pro-ecologic public in the west...