
Unexpected Surge in Global Methane Levels - umadon
https://climatenexus.org/climate-change-news/methane-surge/
======
spraak
Often I see comments asking what we can do to combat this, or expressing
feeling hopeless. While it is not the complete solution, one direct way is by
eliminating your personal consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture
is a huge contributor to methane production, especially from cows.

> Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal
> husbandry and fossil fuel industries have larger greenhouse gas impacts than
> indicated by existing inventories. [1]

[1]
[https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314392110.abs...](https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314392110.abstract)

~~~
sascha_sl
This is terrible advice, because it makes people think they did "enough"
themselves to combat climate change when dropping animal product methane to 0
would not even be close to enough.

Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions. These
need to be dealt with, swiftly.

[https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/2017/jul/10...](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-
responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change)

~~~
ourlordcaffeine
>Remember, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate emissions

Most of these 100 companies are oil companies, and the emissions from oil they
sold on to consumers is unfairly attributed to them. Exxon don't burn oil for
fun, they sell it to people to power their cars.

This statistic is incredibly misleading.

~~~
rapind
Pollution is an externality of the oil industry. Might be better if today's
consumer paid for that at the pump rather than future generations dealing with
it in the environment.

The artificially low price of oil due to postponing / offloading these
external costs significantly slows free market innovation of alternatives and
efficiencies.

So... what's the best way to pay for these negative externals so we don't
simply pass the buck to our kids?

We don't have to throw executives in jail for addressing the market, we just
need a more comprehensive (and truer) price (via taxes) applied to oil.

~~~
manfredo
> Pollution is an externality of the oil industry

Is it? When I pour motor oil in my motorcycle, drain it 500 miles later, and
have it recycled does it put CO2 in the atmosphere? Nope, at least not beyond
the refining process.

Burning oil is what puts CO2 in the atmosphere, and it's consumers that do
that. Not oil companies. Sure, one could say that oil companies are the ones
providing the fuel that consumers are using, but that's sort of like an obese
person complaining about food companies making him fat.

We could charge more for fossil fuels, but this effectively functions as a
regressive tax. It's a tax based on how long people need to commute through
and need more energy to deliver goods over greater distances. This
disproportionately impacts less developed areas, which are typically less
wealthy.

~~~
rapind
How much of the oil "industry" is for producing lubricant though? I'm talking
about gas, stations, fertilizer, plastics, etc. It touches everything. For the
sake of skipping this minor contention, let's just not tax unrefined motor
oil.

In terms of gasoline, the technology builds on itself. Infrastructure like
roads and fast food, expectations like the ability to commute, etc. If cars
and gasoline were prohibitively expensive, commuting would pretty quickly
become obsolete. Companies that require workers to drive 2 hours a day would
have a hard time hiring people... or we'd find new ways to sustain it
(alternatives and / or efficiencies). The price of all goods would go up
considerably too (shipping, manufacturing). We rely on it so heavily!

Obviously we can't eliminate dependence overnight, which is why being
proactive (arguably not proactive enough anymore though) and gradually
implementing programs to phase it out or change it are required.

The goal should be to manage the pain / cost so we don't get hammered by a
massive change in the future, or maybe taking too long and getting stuck with
an unmanageable situation like massively accelerating climate change. The pain
WILL happen regardless, and probably already is.

Just running with it, like we're mostly doing right now, is likely to
disproportionally affect less developed areas far more than the price of gas
and goods (floods, fires, and apocalypse type stuff).

If you believe climate change is real and negative (I assume you do) this is
one part of a potential solution. If you don't believe climate change is real
and negative though, then we're just not on the same page yet, and it's too
early to have this discussion.

------
halfjoking
Not sure how this is "unexpected."

For 20 years there have been articles/studies saying that the "calthrate gun"
containing all the methane stored in Siberia and the arctic is the best reason
we need to keep CO2 levels below 400 ppm.

Now CO2 is at 415 ppm and we're starting to see the accelerated release of
methane and it's "unexpected." Why not interview one of the people who said
this is exactly what was going to happen 10 years ago, and ask them what
happens next?

~~~
assblaster
How does CO2 level above 400 cause release of methane from Siberia? There is
no established direct link between CO2 atmospheric levels and release of
methane.

~~~
davedx
More CO2 = more warming. The polar regions are so far seeing the most extreme
temperature increases: see e.g.
[https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticTC1880-2010NC...](https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticTC1880-2010NCEP.png)

Higher arctic temperatures = permafrost melts, releasing trapped methane. e.g.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4)

~~~
assblaster
So CO2 --> methane is an indirect link at best, and methane levels have been
increasing linearly for the last thirty years.

[https://climatenexus.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/ch4_tren...](https://climatenexus.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/ch4_trend_all_gl.png)

There is no magical CO2 level of 400 that suddenly causes methane to be
released from permafrost.

~~~
brylie
You might be reading the post too literally.

The 400 PPM is a target that is easy for humans to discuss. The general idea
that increased atmospheric CO2 leads to accelerated methane releases due to
thawing of arctic permafrost still holds true, and humans need to set CO2
targets to mitigate this issue.

~~~
assblaster
What's implied with a 400 CO2 level is that anything under that is fine, but
above that level it triggers a calamitous increase increase methane and a so
called runaway greenhouse effect. This is simply not accurate, especially
because the clathrates can release methane far below 400ppm.

The CO2 level should be far lower than 400... A level closer to 200ppm should
be the target.

------
zubspace
One thing I don't understand is why political leaders aren't all over this?
Think about a nation going full green and the effect it could have on
neighbouring countries? Or a president understanding, that this problem was of
highest importance could be a leader of a global change! Think about the fame!

But what do we have instead? Ignorance, unwillingness, a dangerous
continuation of the status quo on the state level andin the general
polulation. Think about exxon who knew this was a problem since the '70 and
there's no change in sight. A dark (or should I say hot?) future awaits us.

~~~
bni
Doing something, I mean really doing something, requires changing our culture.

Future generations, if there are ones, will look back at this time and see
that we have an oil burning culture. Everything we eat, where we live, fossil
fuels have been used to produce and maintain it. If it only was cars that was
the problem we would easily solve it.

To make a real change a Total War economy would have to be implemented, with
the sole function of combating climate change. No-one wants to even start
suggesting that because there would be so much inconvenience and angry people.

Since the effects are only a minor inconvenience yet, for people in the
developed world, its much easier to do nothing. Some deny there is a problem,
others acknowledge it, but put it on the back of their minds mostly (I'm in
this category). The effect is the same. Politicians follow the path of least
resistance, that is how they are elected.

~~~
goodcanadian
_Doing something, I mean really doing something, requires changing our
culture._

I'm not sure it's so dire as that. Taking the US as an example (numbers from
[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emis...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)),
the largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation at 29%. A real push
to switch to electric cars could have a significant impact without
significantly changing the way people live their lives. If presented
correctly, people could see it as a net benefit: no longer going out of your
way to find a gas/petrol station, you just plug in at home and have a full
"tank" every morning.

The next largest source is electricity production (27%). Again, a major push
towards green energy would benefit from strong leadership, but it wouldn't
impact our culture very much. It makes little difference whether the
electricity comes from a coal power station or solar power combined with grid
storage as long as my TV turns on.

The next chunk is industry (22%). Most of this is actually for power
generation again, so see electricity generation above.

Only now do we get to residential and commercial uses at 12% (mostly heating).
Only here are we starting to impact the little people in a big way, and I
would argue that even then, changing out my furnace for a heat pump is not
going to have a big impact on how I live my life.

~~~
jazzyjackson
A real push to switch to electric cars already pushes certain types of people
to drive bigger trucks and pollute more brazenly, e.g. "Rolling Coal" which
I've witnessed first hand in my very liberal college town. Culture is very
complicated and you will always get push back.

Furthermore, switching out the 200+ million cars in USA to electric vehicles
is not going to help emissions because of the carbon footprint of newly
manufactured vehicles.

The idea that providing each citizen with a personal 1000 pound supply of
lithium ion will save the climate is bananas.

I agree that swapping out coal for wind and solar could be done without much
change to culture but solar panel production isn't carbon free either, what we
really need to do is use way, way less electricity per person, and its almost
impossible to convince people to sacrifice for their future.

As far as my suggestions: cash-for-clunkers program except with lifetime
public transit passes instead of cash. Melt down the ICE vehicles for their
aluminum and build lots of trains. This would be justice for the 1920s-40s
when all of our electric trains were melted down to build tanks and bombs.

For the haters that say trains don't work in USA, I refer you to the 1913
Illinois Interurban railway map [1] where you could pay a nickel to hop on a
20-60mph trolley to the next town over.

Use those same train lines to move mail and food from the farmland it passes
through.

Stop eating imported food, stop sending food roundtrip to China for processing
before shipping it back to the store [2]

Stop building houses that need to be heated and cooled artificially year round
because they have no notion of solar gain or heat mass.

I could go on...but business as usual will keep destroying the environment
that keeps us alive.

[1] [https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/txu-
oclc-64454...](https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/txu-
oclc-6445490-electric_railway-champaign-1913.jpg)

[2]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26...](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26food.html)

~~~
zaroth
Why discount EVs if you’re listing energy efficient new housing stock?

EVs are not a car someone is getting who wasn’t otherwise getting a car. It’s
not a question of “let’s build 100 million EVs” but rather, since we _are_
building 100 million vehicles, as many of them as possible should be EVs.

Keep in mind that in order to achieve meaningful results it’s going to cost a
lot of money. That means asking people to pay more, perhaps significantly
more, for items, or in taxes, to cover that cost.

Increasing costs is not just a theoretical hand wavey “oh the rich will pay”
effect. It’s a “pushing more people below the poverty line” kind of effect.

The idea that we should be using way less electricity per person is also I
think missing the point entirely. Electricity per person is a good proxy for
_productivity_ which is a good proxy for _wealth_ of a nation. Reducing energy
use is putting the whole country on a diet, and shrinking GDP would cause more
pain and suffering than climate change in the short term. The solution doesn’t
lie in that approach.

In fact we should be using significantly _more_ electricity per person, to
offset the reduced amount of fossil fuel consumption.

Electricity generation & supply needs to get highly renewable and a lot
cheaper. That is already the trend and we will get there over the next 20
years. Once the retail cost for generation and supply is reliably below
$0.05/kWh you have effectively priced out most uses of fossil fuels. If
electricity stays expense then I just heat my house with natural gas and keep
driving my ICE vehicle.

Your “rolling coal” example is prescient, although perhaps not for the reason
you think. These are people who have been asked to make basically zero
personal sacrafice at all (maybe they chipped in $1.00 toward the EV tax
credits) who still feel threatened by EVs. Rolling coal is not a strike
against EVs it’s the perfect example of how important it is to find efficient
solutions that don’t undercut members of our society, and why EVs are such a
great solution.

~~~
convolvatron
"Reducing energy use is putting the whole country on a diet, and shrinking GDP
would cause more pain and suffering than climate change in the short term."

this really seems to be the root of the matter. unfortunately the wording
isn't completely clear.

are you saying that we'd have to accept some economic discomfort in the short
term to mitigate some serious long term issues? that seems like a tradeoff
worth discussing.

or are you saying that the consequences of economic contraction are so dire
that we'd better just learn to deal with the environmental consequences. maybe
we can find some market solutions (i.e. shifting to electricity) that reduce
emissions somewhat without harming whats really important.

------
cwkoss
I bet frackers are underreporting/underestimating how much methane is leaked
into the atmosphere as a result.

------
mullingitover
Weird that there's no mention of the melting permafrost as a methane source. I
thought that was a well understood potential feedback loop for climate change.

~~~
vneumanarc
Because it doesn't jive with the vegan agenda. Look at the most upvoted
comments here. It's all stealth vegan propaganda masquerading as concern about
the environment.

Never mind that cars, ships, agriculture ( I bet most of these vegans haven't
ever heard of petrochemicals or fertilizers ), smartphones, electricity, etc
are all individually greater contributors to environmental damage.

Also, the growing numbers of bison, deer and other ruminants around the world
contributes to increase in methane levels. People forget that all ruminants (
bison, cows, etc ) all produce methane though they'll use the faux stat of
them being net negative contributors.

And sad as it is, veganism will actually increase fossil fuel usage as the
vegetation that people eat need petrochemical fertilizers to grow and a vegan
diet cannot be locally sourced like meat can, so they need to ship vegan food
from all over the world. But vegans don't like facts too much. They'll throw
in the nonsense about livestock agriculture being transfered for humans. Good
luck surviving on corn, soy and wheat. Humans aren't ruminants. We are
omnivores by nature.

~~~
brandmeyer
> Also, the growing numbers of bison, deer and other ruminants around the
> world contributes to increase in methane levels.

XKCD put up a well-sourced graphic depicting the relative amounts of mammal
biomass on the Earth. Wild animals aren't anywhere remotely close to food
animals.

[https://xkcd.com/1338/](https://xkcd.com/1338/)

------
mdorazio
"That said, most experts in the field suspect that all traditional sources
(natural and anthropogenic) are contributing at least in small part to the
surge, and that the biggest contributor might be wetlands responding to
climate change (though there is some dissent on this point)."

New kind of clathrate gun we didn't anticipate?

~~~
mirimir
No, it's one aspect of the clathrate gun. It's all methane trapped in ice.
Some in undersea sediments, and some in tundra.

------
freebear
The risk of abrupt methane release in the east siberian arctic shelf:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ)

This graph is more fun but not up to date
[https://www.methanelevels.org/](https://www.methanelevels.org/)

------
davesque
Fuck this is scary. My understanding is that methane could be involved in some
theorized runaway feedback loops.

------
lowdose
Great hyperbole with words like "surge" and "skyrocketed" to summarize an
increase of 12% in 35 years.

~~~
xhgdvjky
the percentage is meaningless out of context. you cannot say what is a surge
if you don't know how stable it was before and how stable the equilibrium is.

~~~
lowdose
Using words like skyrocketed explicitly take the increase out of context.
These kind of alarming articles give climate deniers ammunition in the future
when values have doubled and the equilibrium remained state.

------
SamPatt
"Starting in 1990s, the growth in global methane levels began to slow down,
and global methane became relatively stable over the period of 2000-2006. A
resurgence of global methane was not anticipated and came as a surprise."

If it's been rising for centuries and is continuing to rise now, shouldn't the
six year period of stability be the anomaly, not the fact that it's continuing
to increase?

------
bjourne
Keyword is "unexpected." Despite all our climate models, we have almost no
clue about the future of the earth. The IPCC reports are all guesses and the
real situation could be much, much worse than anticipated.

------
kyberias
Looks fairly flat in 2000-2008. What happened there?

~~~
freebear
Methane lifetime in the atmosphere is 11 years, if we "only" put as much in as
eleven years ago it will go flat. Pretty hard to keep the curve up if we do
not get help from the permafrost which has an enormous amount of methane
locked up. Looks like it will blow any day now though!

------
idlewords
Critical to finding the source of these emissions is first establishing who
smelt it.

------
newnewpdro
The scale of human activity has become so large that what may seem like fairly
trivial variations can be quite impactful thanks to the multiplication factor.

Until we substantially reel in the global population size the situation will
continue to be rather precarious.

~~~
mises
> reel in the global population size

What does this mean? Forced sterilization? One-child policies? I don't ask
this to be confrontational, but because it's a difficult question and I
honestly want to hear opinions. Access to contraception doesn't make a
difference when the culture still says you have 8 kids. This is borne out by
what has happened: continued growth of the third-world population. T

~~~
usrusr
One thing to do is to consistently shout down voices who routinely fall back
into the outdated "population growth is good because we need it for my
comfortable pyramid-powered pension" argument, not realizing how much it is at
odds with whatever environmentalist views they might also hold. And even if
they are convinced "fuck the planetists": the old trick of deriving comfort
from growth will stop working at one point, and the only open question is how
close we are already or maybe even beyond.

------
bubblewrap
My favorite doomsday scenario at the moment is that it may be earthworms who
finally kill us: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/science/earthworms-
soil-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/science/earthworms-soil-
climate.html?action=click&module=Discovery&pgtype=Homepage)

They appear to be venturing into new areas and releasing carbon there,
furthering global warming.

There are just too many scenarios of that kind.

Either we really are doomed, and climate will switch into a new kind of
equilibrium hostile to humans.

Or, there are lots of mechanisms in place that counteract against such
effects, and which are not yet well understood.

With so many climate based doomsday scenarios, how did earth survive for so
long? I think there have to be at least some regulating mechanisms.

~~~
swang
earth will survive just fine. its habitability for humans and other current
life on the other hand...

~~~
primroot
I would add ... and other current life, including life on which humans depend,
for which humans have already contributed to their extinction independently of
climate change (see 75% loss of crop diversity in a century as posited by the
FAO).

