The EPA’s Methane Madness

[Mr. H.]

There is much study on that.

The significance of agricultural sources of greenhouse gases - Springer

Abstract
The impact of development of land for agriculture and agricultural production practices on emissions of greenhouse gases is reviewed and evaluated within the context of anthropogenic radiative forcing of climate. Combined, these activities are estimated to contribute about 25%, 65%, and 90% of total anthropogenic emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O, respectively. Agriculture is also a significant contributor to global emissions of NH3, CO, and NO. Over the last 150 y, cumulative emissions of CO2 associated with land clearing for agriculture are comparable to those from combustion of fossil fuel, but the latter is the major source of CO2 at present and is projected to become more dominant in the future. Ruminant animals, rice paddies, and biomass burning are principal agricultural sources of CH4, and oxidation of CH4 by aerobic soils has been reduced by perturbations to natural N cycles. Agricultural sources of N2O have probably been substantially underestimated due to incomplete analysis of increased N flows in the environment, especially via NH3 volatilization from animal manures, leaching of NO 3 -, and increased use of biological N fixation.

The contribution of agriculture to radiative forcing of climate is analyzed using data from theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(base case) and cases where the global warming potential of CH4, and agricultural emissions of N2O are doubled. With these scenarios, agriculture, including land clearing, is estimated to contribute between 28–33% of the radiative forcing created over the next 100yr by 1990 anthropogenic emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Analyses of the sources of agriculturally generated radiative climate forcing show that 80% is associated with tropical agriculture and that two-thirds comes from non-soil sources of greenhouse gases. The importance of agriculture to radiative forcing created by different countries varies widely and is illustrated by comparisons between the USA, India, and Brazil. Some caveats to these analyses include inadequate evaluations of the net greenhouse effects of agroecosystems, uncertainties in global fluxes of greenhouse gases, and incomplete understanding of tropospheric chemical processes.

And the EPA isn't jumping Ag's ass because...?

 

[bripat9643]

Another executive branch agency run amuck. Every agency should have to justify its existence to Congress each year.

No regulation should ever become law with a vote of Congress.

 

[bripat9643]

Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development response to Cathles et al. - Springer

Abstract
In April 2011, we published the first comprehensive analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shale gas obtained by hydraulic fracturing, with a focus on methane emissions. Our analysis was challenged by Cathles et al. (2012). Here, we respond to those criticisms. We stand by our approach and findings. The latest EPA estimate for methane emissions from shale gas falls within the range of our estimates but not those of Cathles et al. which are substantially lower. Cathles et al. believe the focus should be just on electricity generation, and the global warming potential of methane should be considered only on a 100-year time scale. Our analysis covered both electricity (30% of US usage) and heat generation (the largest usage), and we evaluated both 20- and 100-year integrated time frames for methane. Both time frames are important, but the decadal scale is critical, given the urgent need to avoid climate-system tipping points. Using all available information and the latest climate science, we conclude that for most uses, the GHG footprint of shale gas is greater than that of other fossil fuels on time scales of up to 100 years. When used to generate electricity, the shale-gas footprint is still significantly greater than that of coal at decadal time scales but is less at the century scale. We reiterate our conclusion from our April 2011 paper that shale gas is not a suitable bridge fuel for the 21st Century.

Food for thought

We knew you would chime in to defend abject stupidity.

 

[bripat9643]

Gee Old Rocks, I've been telling you methane was a bigger problem than CO2 and you said I was ignorant. Maybe you've just been a liar the whole time.

Maybe you have not looked at the amount of warming that each have caused thus far. The amount for CO2 is far greater than the amount for CH4. That does not mean that the amount for CH4 is negligable, only that it is much smaller than that of CO2.

Neither causes any warming. It's a hoax.

 

[Mr. H.]

Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development response to Cathles et al. - Springer

Abstract
In April 2011, we published the first comprehensive analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shale gas obtained by hydraulic fracturing, with a focus on methane emissions. Our analysis was challenged by Cathles et al. (2012). Here, we respond to those criticisms. We stand by our approach and findings. The latest EPA estimate for methane emissions from shale gas falls within the range of our estimates but not those of Cathles et al. which are substantially lower. Cathles et al. believe the focus should be just on electricity generation, and the global warming potential of methane should be considered only on a 100-year time scale. Our analysis covered both electricity (30% of US usage) and heat generation (the largest usage), and we evaluated both 20- and 100-year integrated time frames for methane. Both time frames are important, but the decadal scale is critical, given the urgent need to avoid climate-system tipping points. Using all available information and the latest climate science, we conclude that for most uses, the GHG footprint of shale gas is greater than that of other fossil fuels on time scales of up to 100 years. When used to generate electricity, the shale-gas footprint is still significantly greater than that of coal at decadal time scales but is less at the century scale. We reiterate our conclusion from our April 2011 paper that shale gas is not a suitable bridge fuel for the 21st Century.

Food for thought

We knew you would chime in to defend abject stupidity.

He's a good fellow. Misguided, yes. But a decent egg.

 

[saveliberty]

Old Rocks only understands big and little, he's a science guy remember?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Gee Old Rocks, I've been telling you methane was a bigger problem than CO2 and you said I was ignorant. Maybe you've just been a liar the whole time.

Maybe you have not looked at the amount of warming that each have caused thus far. The amount for CO2 is far greater than the amount for CH4. That does not mean that the amount for CH4 is negligable, only that it is much smaller than that of CO2.

2 decades, no warming

 

[mamooth]

2014, hottest year ever. Hence Frank's ongoing meltdowns.

You have to pity the true hardcore cult kooks like Frank and Bri, the ones who are too deeply brainwashed to be capable of surviving outside of the cult. All the data keeps pouring in which says they're full of shit, so they have to spend their days thinking up new and original ways to deny all the data. Most deniers aren't even trying to do science any more, which is really for the best, being how badly they suck at science. Instead, they just froth out the ravings of their kook fringe political cult, stories of the secret vast global socialist conspiracy. Their crazy, it just keeps escalating.

 

[bripat9643]

2014, hottest year ever. Hence Frank's ongoing meltdowns.

You have to pity the true hardcore cult kooks like Frank and Bri, the ones who are too deeply brainwashed to be capable of surviving outside of the cult. All the data keeps pouring in which says they're full of shit, so they have to spend their days thinking up new and original ways to deny all the data. Most deniers aren't even trying to do science any more, which is really for the best, being how badly they suck at science. Instead, they just froth out the ravings of their kook fringe political cult, stories of the secret vast global socialist conspiracy. Their crazy, it just keeps escalating.

You wouldn't know science if someone smacked you in the face with it.

 

[Stephanie]

I don't why we have a frikken Congress. Paying them to sit there to look stupid and worthless

All these Government agencies have become our lord and Masters

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2014, hottest year ever. Hence Frank's ongoing meltdowns.

You have to pity the true hardcore cult kooks like Frank and Bri, the ones who are too deeply brainwashed to be capable of surviving outside of the cult. All the data keeps pouring in which says they're full of shit, so they have to spend their days thinking up new and original ways to deny all the data. Most deniers aren't even trying to do science any more, which is really for the best, being how badly they suck at science. Instead, they just froth out the ravings of their kook fringe political cult, stories of the secret vast global socialist conspiracy. Their crazy, it just keeps escalating.

^ Hivemind convinced her that other people can only survive in hives.

 

[jc456]

Gee Old Rocks, I've been telling you methane was a bigger problem than CO2 and you said I was ignorant. Maybe you've just been a liar the whole time.

Maybe you have not looked at the amount of warming that each have caused thus far. The amount for CO2 is far greater than the amount for CH4. That does not mean that the amount for CH4 is negligable, only that it is much smaller than that of CO2.

I'd love to, so you have that lab work now?

 

[jc456]

reply to the hottest year ever?....................................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The EPA’s Methane Madness
...
Regarding the methane reduction crusade the EPA has launched, Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, says...

S. Fred Singer, founder and Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project as well as a Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute says...

...

Reminds me of the Institutes and science that claimed Smoking did NOT cause cancer

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your better off using coal.

in the stockings of every rigtwinger come Xmas time

 

[jc456]

The EPA’s Methane Madness
...
Regarding the methane reduction crusade the EPA has launched, Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, says...

S. Fred Singer, founder and Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project as well as a Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute says...

...

Reminds me of the Institutes and science that claimed Smoking did NOT cause cancer

 

[jc456]

Your better off using coal.

in the stockings of every rigtwinger come Xmas time

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

S R 7 8 What s Wrong with the EPA William Sanjour Yeah, the EPA is always so anti business

When I came to the then-new agency, I hoped to do something useful and constructive. In 1974 I was made a branch chief in the Hazardous Waste Management Division. The studies I supervised there played an important part in the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, the first federal law regulating toxic waste. I was also in charge of drafting regulations for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. ​

But in 1978 the Carter administration, preoccupied with inflation, took steps to protect industry by removing the teeth from those regulations.​

-- granted, the author is a bit of a nut speaking about the Founders and such (like many nuts here), but...

 

[waltky]

Appeals Court Rules Against EPA...

Appeals Court Rules Against EPA in Methane Gas Regulations
July 03, 2017 - A U.S. federal appeals court ruled Monday that Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt lacks the authority to suspend rules that oil and gas companies monitor and fix methane gas leaks.

Two of the three judges on the panel wrote that an order delaying such a rule is the same thing as revoking it. Pruitt said in April he wanted to put its enforcement on hold for 90 days, later saying he wanted to extend it for two years. He argued that oil and gas companies are already monitoring methane leaks and that the federal regulations would make some wells unprofitable.

A BP Florida operations manager looks over a methane gas well site east of Bayfield, Colorado​

No comment from EPA

Several environmental groups sued to stop Pruitt. “This ruling … slams the brakes on the Trump administration's brazen efforts to put the interests of corporate polluters ahead of protecting the public and the environment,” National Resources Defense Council official David Doniger said. This was one of the groups that sued to stop the EPA. An EPA spokeswoman said the agency is studying the court decision and had no other comment. Methane emanating from natural gas production is a major contributor to global warming.

A first for Trump

This is the first court decision to go against Trump administration efforts to overturn or block rules and executive orders it believes are unfair to the fossil fuel industry. Pruitt has joined the White House in arguing that tough regulations hurt industry and jobs as the U.S. strives to become more energy independent — an effort it says must include oil, gas and coal production, along with renewable resources. Environmentalists say overturning such rules gives industry a blank check to ignore laws protecting the air and streams from pollution.

Appeals Court Rules Against EPA in Methane Gas Regulations

 

[mamooth]

More methane booms in Siberia.

Two Massive New Holes Have Exploded Open In Siberia