Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Anastariana t1_is31sce wrote

Alternative, and more honest, headline:

Oil and Gas firms lie about their emissions and leakage rates.

202

hootblah1419 t1_is4a5yk wrote

I can assure you, the amount emitted and not reported by gas utilities is also criminally fraudulent. After having experience working with gas utilities, leakage rates are watered down so much through so many different methods. It's like a large corporations accounting firms - imaginative, thorough, and pushes the line into illegality. But to prove it or even know it's happening to look into it in the first place is...

30

writerightnow18 t1_is38mws wrote

Interpretation: We’re more fucked than we thought.

48

Doctor_Fritz t1_is4l279 wrote

This has been the underlying headline for years. I believ I'll see the desastrous effects of this before I die, and not the year 2100 like many climate scientists claimed in the 90's

19

Tearakan t1_is6kdfy wrote

Yep. The mega storms we are seeing more frequently now are a direct result of climate change.

It'll probably end up causing large scale famines in 5 years.

5

LakeSun t1_is76197 wrote

Global Drought = Global Famine.

US drought is even at the Mississippi river, and it's affecting wheat/corn/food transportation, and prices, Today!

4

SvedishFish t1_is7qmod wrote

We are already seeing large scale droughts. So far our farming and irrigation technology has been able to keep pace but we are really pushing into hard limits here. Business interests are unwilling to make even minor cuts, accelerating is to the point where disaster is inevitable.

3

Splenda t1_isoepcu wrote

5 years? No. 30-60 years is more likely. This is far faster than former IPCC forecasts.

−1

Tearakan t1_isonnt5 wrote

We had serious harvest and planting issues across the globe this year......

2

Splenda t1_isoqg6e wrote

And those will continue. However, there is no evidence that "large scale famine" is in the cards within 5 years. Saying there is merely discredits science.

0

Tearakan t1_isp97w1 wrote

If we have these disruptions every year that will pile up. It will cause mass famine when most of the world's bread basket regions can't produce food at the scale they normally do.

It is already causing food issues in poorer nations this year.

And we've seen a ton of new issues pop up that almost always have the "faster than expected" line in them.

1

Splenda t1_isp9jin wrote

Yes, but what evidence is there that this will lead to mass famine in five years?

0

reb0014 t1_is55ejh wrote

We always have been. Especially since we’re trusting those with incentive to lie, to not lie. It’s not like there’s functional oversight…

2

simcoder t1_is30chf wrote

Good thing that we've hamstrung all the regulatory agencies on this issue!

28

matt_the_hat t1_is49oc3 wrote

One of the reasons this is important is that Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.

18

Splenda t1_isodzji wrote

Methane is far more than 25 times as potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It's all relative to the time that methane exists before oxidizing to CO2. The 25x figure is measured over a century but methane only lasts for about 9 years, during which its greenhouse warming effect is around 140x CO2.

There is much industry pressure to stretch the time window by which methane's greenhouse warming potential is measured, because the longer the period the less harmful methane looks.

1

L7Death t1_is4vmrq wrote

Methane is measured in parts per billion though. While CO2 is measured in parts per million. Orders of magnitude and all that.... Methane simply doesn't accumulate like CO2, since methane becomes CO2 and water by hydroxyl reactions in the atmosphere within a decade.

−5

raulbloodwurth OP t1_is5hqvu wrote

The global warming potential (GWP) of CH4 is 84-times higher than CO2 over 20 years and 28-times higher over 100 years.

5

raulbloodwurth OP t1_is2x49j wrote

Link to original paper in Science.

title: Inefficient and unlit natural gas flares both emit large quantities of methane

13

routerg0d t1_is3vwz9 wrote

We would of known that over a decade ago but the satellite that would detect it blew up on launch. Coincidence?

6

Not_a_N_Korean_Spy t1_is4ymg0 wrote

It is true that the NASA launch of the 2009 satellite failed and with these things it is easy to suspect sabotage (fossil fuel companies have immense power). But there are plenty other greenhouse gases observing satellites (like the Japanese GOSAT from 2009, full list here).

5

catnapspirit t1_is33bao wrote

You only have to live near one for a little while to figure that one out. It ain't hard..

9

Baud_Olofsson t1_is4vtw9 wrote

No, it is pretty hard to detect traces of an odorless, colorless gas.

8

GadgetGo t1_is40hdy wrote

That’s probably various alkenes and btex you’re smelling :(

7

AbbyTMinstrel t1_is481uk wrote

With the $ oil companies spend trying to convince us they’re “green” they could fix this.

9

KofCrypto0720 t1_is4ee8s wrote

How much worse is methane than co2?

Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO2 has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term.

8

Splenda t1_isofb13 wrote

Methane lasts for 9 years before becoming CO2, so why isn't its effect measured on a 9-year span rather than 20 or 100 years?

Hint: the world's most powerful industry doesn't want anyone saying methane is actually 140x worse than CO2.

2

Apprehensive-Worry44 t1_is50u92 wrote

They burn the planet, they earn the money, they rule politics..... When is it going to end.... When will we end this?

IPCC projections are getting darker every day, at this rate they are going to extract every last drop of fossil fuels just for some profits. Rebellion for extinction.... Anybody?

6

LakeSun t1_is76az3 wrote

The damage oil does is on the ratio of 1 Profit Unit / 100 Damage Units.

But, they love that profit, screw their family, their kids, their nation and our world.

3

SexyOldHobo t1_is6b7x1 wrote

I think we should bioengineer some kind of bacteria or maybe even self replicating robots that are capable of destroying oil and make it impossible to refine. Something that would just take one person slipping it in the well.

People support the oil lords with religious fervor, whether it’s the Saudi kings (decedents of Muhammad) or the US Supreme Court (Evangelicals), so I don’t think seizing the supplies through direct conflict is feasible, as conservatives across the world would view it as a holy war challenging Gods graces

2

flint_fireforge t1_is506hd wrote

Shouldn't there be excise taxes on this type of mass pollution?

4

Aardark235 t1_is6wl2g wrote

Good luck getting Americans to agree to a higher gas tax. They are screaming bloody murder with a 3% reduction from OPEC.

People have the doublethink that a) the world is coming to an end due to Climate Change and 2) heck no, not going to pay an extra $0.25/L for gas.

1

flint_fireforge t1_is83z22 wrote

You misinterpreted me. Tax the companies on the emissions so that they stop/minimize emissions. Better than regulations.

2

Aardark235 t1_is8854d wrote

Higher crude oil prices does exactly this. The governments in oil exporting countries get more revenues and the world has less greenhouse emissions.

Agreed, much better than regulations.

0

cr0ft t1_is5c8gv wrote

You know, it's never "climate change things are way better than we thought", is it? It's always "We're screwed, and much more screwed than we wishful-thinking-guessed we'd be earlier".

3

KingGidorah t1_is478jt wrote

They’re not higher than I thought…

2

null640 t1_is5dav8 wrote

Gee self reported emissions are lower then direct measurements..

You should see study on gas station evaporates emissions vs. their self reported emissions.

2

AutoModerator t1_is2x0wo wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Astropin t1_is4203p wrote

Guess they need Bitcoin miners to capture it and use it for a good purpose.

1

Cindyscameltoe t1_is4quiy wrote

Yeah, mine bitcoin onsite to monetize the excess methane and reduce emissions by turning the methane to co2.

Dont see alot of good in bitcoin, but this use case seems like a no brainer.

0

LakeSun t1_is76kuv wrote

It's a no brainer all right.

No one with a brain would do this.

1

EVEOpalDragon t1_is5aicv wrote

You mean it wasn’t the cows! Shocker. Industry really has us all gaslit while they burn the planet around us. Next step is to get us all to kill one another .

1

YessikZiiiq t1_is6abub wrote

Companies have hidden real emission values or gone through minimal efforts to check their accuracy? Shocker.

1

TiredIrons t1_is7i9kk wrote

All of their incentives are to underreport, misrepresent, and outright lie - of course that's what they do.

1

sendokun t1_is5jmxo wrote

With the price of energy it is today, I am sure tech are being developed to capture those emissions. It’s not about saving the world from climate change, it’s all about money.

0