Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Prinzka t1_jd3ypv6 wrote

Reply to comment by Vlacas12 in TIL A coal seam in Australia is believed to have been burning for 6,000 years, making it the oldest coal fire. The site's name is Mount Wingen but is commonly called Burning Mountain and the fire is traveling south 1m per year discoloring the ground as it goes. by jamescookenotthatone

It still contributes to the same issues, even if it's not caused by humans.
The vast amounts of resources needed to even try to put this out probably far outweigh the benefits.
But i don't think it's accurate to say that just because it's not human made it can't haem us.

2

Vlacas12 t1_jd426lh wrote

What I am saying is, that it is totally irrelevant to current climate change. It doesn't "contribute to the same issues", because natural sources just don't have the same, critical effect, even if you take all of them combined, as anthropogenic climate change.

0

Prinzka t1_jd463u7 wrote

Dunno what to say to this. That's simply not true.
You can't say that human coal burning contributes to our climate change but coal burning that we didn't cause doesn't contribute.

3

shalafi71 t1_jd4otm9 wrote

What /u/Vlacas12 means is this; There are $X tons of CO2 released naturally. There are $Y tons of CO2 released due to human activity.

$X isn't such a big deal, taken apart from $Y, because nature recycles it. Add in $Y, which is more than nature can make use of, that's a big deal.

Does that makes sense? OP is breaking it down, you're taking a total approach. One can't say either view is wrong.

2