Methane is a potent GHG, but its residency time in the atmosphere is on the order of one quarter as long as CO2.
So in terms of our ability to adjust future climate forcings, releasing lots of methane in the short term and observing the many negative effects in the near future seems much better to me than releasing lots of CO2 and seeing the cumulative effects of those CO2 emission grow more slowly but last longer.
I think humans tend to deal better with quickly emerging crises than slow ones, so I’d much rather have a methane ecosystem we see problems with than exchange it for an equal forcing amount of CO2.
Of course, we can and should pursue CO2 reductions and fix accidental CH4 emissions at the same time.
Many of the problems caused by warming would effectively be permanent though. Melted ice caps wont reform any time soon, especially since when they stop reflecting sunlight, the Albedo change alone will kick in even more warming. It could also take thousands of years to melt the tundra, slowly releasing vast quantities of methane, so even though individual molecules break down they will get replenished constantly over a long period.
Finally the biggest sink of methane in the atmosphere is the hydroxyl reaction in the troposphere which - generates carbon dioxide.
Certainly the hydroxyl reaction leaves behind CO2, but much less of it than an equivalent forcing of plain CO2, is my point.
I still tend to think investing in cheap CH4 plants and pipelines is better than investing in coal, but I’ll happily concede the point that increased radiative forcings from any source have non-reversible effects, and we should be pricing in those externalities as soon as we can.
The sooner we can get a (high) radiative forcing tax in place, the better.
When methane's "residency time in the atmosphere" is over, doesn't that mean it's just converted to CO2? So wouldn't that mean its time is effectively 1.25x CO2's?
I'm actually asking, I have a lot of gaps in my knowledge on this.
Because each molecule is more potent before breaking down than a long-resident CO2 molecule, you’re talking about a much smaller mass of CH4 per unit of forcing.
Of course our knowledge of all the current and emergent syncs and sources for all GHG emissions is an evolving science, so we can’t speak with precision about all this.
> I think humans tend to deal better with quickly emerging crises than slow ones, so I’d much rather have a methane ecosystem we see problems with than exchange it for an equal forcing amount of CO2.
yeahnah, we can see the problems with CO2 just fine thanks.
So in terms of our ability to adjust future climate forcings, releasing lots of methane in the short term and observing the many negative effects in the near future seems much better to me than releasing lots of CO2 and seeing the cumulative effects of those CO2 emission grow more slowly but last longer.
I think humans tend to deal better with quickly emerging crises than slow ones, so I’d much rather have a methane ecosystem we see problems with than exchange it for an equal forcing amount of CO2.
Of course, we can and should pursue CO2 reductions and fix accidental CH4 emissions at the same time.