What’s greener? Fireplace insert vs 95% NG

[mnowaczyk]

When it’s below freezing, I like to get rid of firewood I’ve gathered through the year. I could take this stuff to the yard waste disposal as I’ve done with old wood full of carpenter ants, but my belief up to now was that if I can burn it hot enough, it’s greener to offset my natural gas usage with a nice hot fire on those days my 95% efficient modulating condensing natural gas boiler would be burning more material gas to keep the house at 68-69 F, while the fireplace insert will heat up areas of the house to 74 F, even though it’s an old 1981-1982 Vermont Stove Company slammer install with a 13x13 clay lined flue (that I have brushes to clean to assure creosote buildip never gets too bad despite my bad flue setup.

Anyway, my question is not about my setup, but more about whether I should be letting this wood rot instead of burning it.

I figure any fossil fuels we can leave in the earth is good. That’s CO2 that wouldn’t be created if the fuel was left in the earth. Rotting wood on the other hand creates methane, even if it has only 1/6th the environmental impact. … per this article…

Is It Better To Burn Wood or Let It Rot? - The Hiking Authority

I live in a rural area where I have to clear and deal with brush every year. The bigger stuff gets cut, split and stacked for my wood burner, but what should I do with the smaller debris? Is it better burn the brush or stack it up and let it decompose? Decomposition produces methane… Read More...

thehikingauthority.com

 

[Highbeam]

Don’t waste the wood. Burn it properly to offset fossil fuel usage.

 

[ABMax24]

Short term vs long term.

Burning wood reduces local air quality, albeit less with a modern stove.

Your furnace burns very clean in comparison, but you are contributing carbon to the atmosphere that has been stored for a few hundred million years.

 

[mnowaczyk]

So I’m going to agree with open flame fires being worse than letting the wood rot as they don’t capture the heat the way you can with a stove or insert.

We bought a house this past year, and are currently renting it out, but I would like to get an insert with a cold air intake, one that is going to look nice and also be efficient. So in the long run I would definitely like to continue burning wood, but want to be sure that I’m not an environment killer when running my stove at 400+ degrees. As I site here now, the fire is lazy and low with 525 F at the center of the doors and only 350 at the top corners. I love it when the doors get up to 750 and it’s 500 in the top corners.

 

[EbS-P]

I have had similar thoughts about if wood burning is greener than letting it rot. My thoughts are these. I sure wouldn’t want all of my neighbors burning wood like I do. The air quality would suffer. So in that regard I would say 95% gas is better than wood on the larger scale. It’s just cleaner.

Now I don’t think many people burn wood down here. So on an personal scale I am very content knowing that Duke energy and their 30% coal power isn’t heating my house.

I do think a heatpump is the greenest solution with the lowest total emissions. I have run mine more this year. I try to run it anytime when temps are above 45 and the stove is cold. We didn’t get above 45 yesterday and just hit 32 for a low but forecast is to be a high of 65 so I will go out and relight tomorrow evening or Wednesday morning. I need to add attic insulation if I could get well enough insulated to hold enough heat throughout the night and next morning (say 18 hours) I could cut my wood consumption considerably. Wait till temps warm up heat the house with heat pump when it’s warm enough.

And old stove isn't going to have the efficiency of newer stoves. I don’t think that can be ignored.

So my answer is I think the gas furnace is cleaner and at larger scale the greener option. Wood if you a careful considerate burner has less CO2 impacts. Do the carbon footprint calculator for your situation. Automobiles account for slightly more than half of my emissions. Switching to an EV would cut my footprint by at least 25% given our electric generation makeup and the fact I don’t think we can do an EV on our long vacation trips.

I don’t see heating with wood making this big of a impact. If Every thing you burn would take 4 years to decompose completely so you are accelerating that by a factor of four. So you can only really get a 25% “credit” for your burning. Does that make sense?

 

[peakbagger]

Depends what is gnawing on the wood and where it is at. (broken link removed)

 

[woodgeek]

Burn it. Unless its in an airtight landfill, that wood will rot in the next decade or two, releasing all its carbon AND some methane.

Your link says the methane has 1/6th the GW potential as the CO2.

Is It Better To Burn Wood or Let It Rot? - The Hiking Authority

I live in a rural area where I have to clear and deal with brush every year. The bigger stuff gets cut, split and stacked for my wood burner, but what should I do with the smaller debris? Is it better burn the brush or stack it up and let it decompose? Decomposition produces methane… Read More...

thehikingauthority.com

I suspect that depends on how wet/aerobic the wood is while its rotting.

So, YES, burning will release MORE CO2 than the gas boiler per BTU heating. Probably twice as much. Call the amount of Global Warming (GW) impact from the the CO2 emitted burning X 'units'. If the wood rotted in the next ten years instead, it would release 1.15 X (from rotting CO2 and CH4) AND 0.5 X from your NG (burned instead, or 1.65 X total compared to if you had just burned the wood (1.0 X from CO2 alone).

A little better, but not much. Like 40% lower GW impact (1 - 1/1.6). The Earth doesn't distinguish between fossil and bio carbon... its all the same. No Brownie point for bio-carbon.

Ofc, drilling and distributing methane also releases methane, which makes that number even worse. Estimates vary, but some folks think that fugitive methane has almost as much GW impact as the CO2 released from burning it. That would make the math closer to 2X GW impact of rotting (+NG) versus wood burning. Or 50% lower GW impact.

Or you can put up solar panels and get a minisplit, and have 100% lower impact (if you believe in the magic of the 'grid battery' for seasonal storage).

 

[mnowaczyk]

I generally struggle with these things, and I think I’m not alone in trying to find the answer. I believe I read somewhere that methane is 30x worse as a greenhouse gas, but don’t see that referenced in the article listed above. I can see how some people throw up their hands with respect to trying to “be green”. Tesla batteries made from nickel mined from rain forests. It’s friggin complicated. Yet it’s all science, and we should be able to figure these things out and make them simple.

For example, if wood burns cleaner when hotter could we say:
At X degrees, burning wood bad
At Y degrees, you break even
At Z degrees, you are making 1/2 the greenhouse gases as if using Natural Gas.

That might be dumbing it down a bit, but these rules of thumb might help people stop throwing their hands up in the air.

I believe we have a responsibility to try to be better as a nation that is richer than the average, and also emits more greenhouse gasses than the average person per capita.

My wife doesn’t want to leave our neighborhood on the national historic register with steep slate roofs and lots of trees, not really suitable for solar. I’ve investigated already and am looking into community solar options/investments too.

I just don’t want to be a foolish hypocrite saying I’m doing good by brining wood, but really being 100% wrong about it. I assume everyone can relate to that.

 

[stoveliker]

That article says rotting wood releases methane with a global warming capacity of 1/6 that of the CO2 (released from that same rotting wood). As, yes, methane is a much much worse greenhouse gas than CO2, this means only a tiny amount of methane is being released during the rotting.

So you are correct,.and the article is too.

 

[mnowaczyk]

Depends what is gnawing on the wood and where it is at. (broken link removed)

Thanks for this article. Very interesting. I wonder if they got the numbers right. 115% of what is released from fossil fuels seems immense.

 

[woodgeek]

OP, the answer is pretty simple once you define what your two comparison cases are: Burning the wood instead of NG, or burning the NG and letting the wood rot. The article you found explained why. The wood burning case is certainly better for GW impact. How much does vary a little based upon the efficiency of the woodstove and NG boiler, but bc the rotting has a higher global warming impact than burning (bc of the extra 15% kick from a little methane) it is ALWAYS better.

My simple estimate says its 40% lower GW impact. Nothing to sneeze at.

(I live in a very shady neighborhood, and solar is not an option for me either.)

"I generally struggle with these things, and I think I’m not alone in trying to find the answer. I believe I read somewhere that methane is 30x worse as a greenhouse gas, but don’t see that referenced in the article listed above. I can see how some people throw up their hands with respect to trying to “be green”. Tesla batteries made from nickel mined from rain forests. It’s friggin complicated. Yet it’s all science, and we should be able to figure these things out and make them simple."

The material flows of zillions of compounds through the economy, cross borders and the biosphere is gonna be more complicated than a checkbook. But the numbers ARE known. The ones around GW have been known for more than a century.

The science IS settled, and when there is a residual uncertainty, a scientist will put in an uncertainty range 10±3 or 7-13 whatevers. Of course they will. So if you read a peer-reviewed scientific paper, or a govt publication or a media summary of either of those, the information IS reliable.

The confusion and people throwing up their hands is largely the result of deliberate misinformation by a large number of parties.

Think about the science of tobacco smoking causing lung cancer. While this was clearly demonstrated in the 1960s, throughout the 1960's and 1970's there were bunches of counter studies and reports that argued that the science wasn't settled! And a bunch of BS products like 'low tar' cigarettes got marketed that claimed to be safer (they weren't). For two decades a lot of people read all that chit, 'threw up their hands' and kept on smoking until those industry-backed studies and PR hacks were finally forced to cease and desist with legal penalties.

Those very same PR hacks and legal firms are now spreading misinformation TODAY about renewable energy, clean tech, EVs and global warming. Stick to scientific papers and govt docs and the facts are clear.

Thanks for this article. Very interesting. I wonder if they got the numbers right. 115% of what is released from fossil fuels seems immense.

The 115% figure comes from an article in Nature. Its been vetted carefully.

Immense? The biosphere of the Earth has a dry mass estimated at 1.2 trillion tons (a significant amount of that would be carbon).

Anthropocene: human-made materials now weigh as much as all living biomass, say scientists

The science-fiction scenario of an engineered planet is already here.

theconversation.com

Global oil consumption is also immense, about a cubic mile of oil per year. For comparison a cubic kilometer of oil would be only about a billion tons (1000m*1000m*1000m * density of oil(tons/m^3). Since there are 4 cubic kilometers in a cubic mile, that is about 4 billion tons of oil per year.

Compare the two numbers... the biosphere dry mass is 300X annual global oil consumption. So if the biosphere is converting <1% of its mass into CO2 per year, it matches fossil fuel outputs. Seems sensible to me.

This latter point is why scientists care a LOT about land use. Cutting down a forest and replacing it with a farm (or the reverse) does have a very large effect on CO2. Scientists studying gas bubbles in ice cores in the Antarctic can see way back into the Middle Ages when after the Black Death, a lot of farms regrew forests... it pulled down atmospheric CO2 measurably.

 

[EbS-P]

I generally struggle with these things, and I think I’m not alone in trying to find the answer. I believe I read somewhere that methane is 30x worse as a greenhouse gas, but don’t see that referenced in the article listed above. I can see how some people throw up their hands with respect to trying to “be green”. Tesla batteries made from nickel mined from rain forests. It’s friggin complicated. Yet it’s all science, and we should be able to figure these things out and make them simple.

For example, if wood burns cleaner when hotter could we say:
At X degrees, burning wood bad
At Y degrees, you break even
At Z degrees, you are making 1/2 the greenhouse gases as if using Natural Gas.

That might be dumbing it down a bit, but these rules of thumb might help people stop throwing their hands up in the air.

I believe we have a responsibility to try to be better as a nation that is richer than the average, and also emits more greenhouse gasses than the average person per capita.

My wife doesn’t want to leave our neighborhood on the national historic register with steep slate roofs and lots of trees, not really suitable for solar. I’ve investigated already and am looking into community solar options/investments too.

I just don’t want to be a foolish hypocrite saying I’m doing good by brining wood, but really being 100% wrong about it. I assume everyone can relate to that.

Byproducts of wood combustion in are not just CO2. I think this is where wood will lose on a large scale.

On a personal scale. I think burning helps me feel like I’m doing something. (My heating system is under sized and my ducts leak a lot so I needed some supplemental heat. )

I can use wood burner a zoned heat source unlike my heatpump. I can heat 1000 sq ft instead of 3000. Wood wins there. But I keep those room much warmer that the thermostat setting.

 

[mnowaczyk]

I have had similar thoughts about if wood burning is greener than letting it rot. My thoughts are these. I sure wouldn’t want all of my neighbors burning wood like I do. The air quality would suffer. So in that regard I would say 95% gas is better than wood on the larger scale. It’s just cleaner.

Now I don’t think many people burn wood down here. So on an personal scale I am very content knowing that Duke energy and their 30% coal power isn’t heating my house.

I do think a heatpump is the greenest solution with the lowest total emissions. I have run mine more this year. I try to run it anytime when temps are above 45 and the stove is cold. We didn’t get above 45 yesterday and just hit 32 for a low but forecast is to be a high of 65 so I will go out and relight tomorrow evening or Wednesday morning. I need to add attic insulation if I could get well enough insulated to hold enough heat throughout the night and next morning (say 18 hours) I could cut my wood consumption considerably. Wait till temps warm up heat the house with heat pump when it’s warm enough.

And old stove isn't going to have the efficiency of newer stoves. I don’t think that can be ignored.

So my answer is I think the gas furnace is cleaner and at larger scale the greener option. Wood if you a careful considerate burner has less CO2 impacts. Do the carbon footprint calculator for your situation. Automobiles account for slightly more than half of my emissions. Switching to an EV would cut my footprint by at least 25% given our electric generation makeup and the fact I don’t think we can do an EV on our long vacation trips.

I don’t see heating with wood making this big of a impact. If Every thing you burn would take 4 years to decompose completely so you are accelerating that by a factor of four. So you can only really get a 25% “credit” for your burning. Does that make sense?

I like what you say here, and my opinion is that burning wood above 40 degrees F (outside temp) doesn’t make sense in our scenario. I think when oil modcon boiler is at 110 F or lower (as it’s curve is “outside temp” + “boiler water temp” = 150 F) it’s going to be most efficient. The fire is really good at easing the need for the boiler to work when it drops below 40, even more so when we have 24-hour periods that don’t get above freezing. Those are days I will try to burn all day.

We have lots of wood that’s more than 4 years old, and I just finished burning all the “punky” stuff that probably already released a lot of CO2. I’m really trying to clean up my pile this year. I’ve got tons of really small fire starting stuff collected.

This gets me thinking of how “bad” it is when I see tree companies chipping wood up to 4-8” in diameter. That wood is all going to rot without being burnt, and seems like a huge shame.

It seems that one thing that indisputably will help the GW is stopping the consumption of red meat.

Maybe helping forest re-grow where possible. Do I fill my yards with as many trees as possible? If so, what kind?

Last night I failed at my wood burning. I tossed on some unseasoned 5” rounds before bed and woke to an insert full of creosote.

Well, I’m not at all surprised to find supporters of burning wood

I will try to continue reading and figuring out how to reduce my carbon footprint.

 

[mnowaczyk]

Thanks for the very helpful reply Woodgeek! Lots of good info there!

 

[stoveliker]

OP, the answer is pretty simple once you define what your two comparison cases are: Burning the wood instead of NG, or burning the NG and letting the wood rot. The article you found explained why. The wood burning case is certainly better for GW impact. How much does vary a little based upon the efficiency of the woodstove and NG boiler, but bc the rotting has a higher global warming impact than burning (bc of the extra 15% kick from a little methane) it is ALWAYS better.

My simple estimate says its 40% lower GW impact. Nothing to sneeze at.

(I live in a very shady neighborhood, and solar is not an option for me either.)



The material flows of zillions of compounds through the economy, cross borders and the biosphere is gonna be more complicated than a checkbook. But the numbers ARE known. The ones around GW have been known for more than a century.

The science IS settled, and when there is a residual uncertainty, a scientist will put in an uncertainty range 10±3 or 7-13 whatevers. Of course they will. So if you read a peer-reviewed scientific paper, or a govt publication or a media summary of either of those, the information IS reliable.

The confusion and people throwing up their hands is largely the result of deliberate misinformation by a large number of parties.

Think about the science of tobacco smoking causing lung cancer. While this was clearly demonstrated in the 1960s, throughout the 1960's and 1970's there were bunches of counter studies and reports that argued that the science wasn't settled! And a bunch of BS products like 'low tar' cigarettes got marketed that claimed to be safer (they weren't). For two decades a lot of people read all that chit, 'threw up their hands' and kept on smoking until those industry-backed studies and PR hacks were finally forced to cease and desist with legal penalties.

Those very same PR hacks and legal firms are now spreading misinformation TODAY about renewable energy, clean tech, EVs and global warming. Stick to scientific papers and govt docs and the facts are clear.



The 115% figure comes from an article in Nature. Its been vetted carefully.

Immense? The biosphere of the Earth has a dry mass estimated at 1.2 trillion tons (a significant amount of that would be carbon).

Anthropocene: human-made materials now weigh as much as all living biomass, say scientists

The science-fiction scenario of an engineered planet is already here.

theconversation.com

Global oil consumption is also immense, about a cubic mile of oil per year. For comparison a cubic kilometer of oil would be only about a billion tons (1000m*1000m*1000m * density of oil(tons/m^3). Since there are 4 cubic kilometers in a cubic mile, that is about 4 billion tons of oil per year.

Compare the two numbers... the biosphere dry mass is 300X annual global oil consumption. So if the biosphere is converting <1% of its mass into CO2 per year, it matches fossil fuel outputs. Seems sensible to me.

This latter point is why scientists care a LOT about land use. Cutting down a forest and replacing it with a farm (or the reverse) does have a very large effect on CO2. Scientists studying gas bubbles in ice cores in the Antarctic can see way back into the Middle Ages when after the Black Death, a lot of farms regrew forests... it pulled down atmospheric CO2 measurably.

While I agree with the majority of your post, the one thing that is missing is that rotting wood transfers a lot of carbon to the foodweb, where it remains a long time. Germs, bugs, more bugs, more bugs,.birds, mammals etc. And humus; our soil is a huuuge carbon sink.

The resulting fauna biomass (mostly carbon) that a rotting tree provides keeps cycling (if habitat is not destroyed), keeping large quantities of carbon out of the air.

So while rotting wood releases CO2, it also is the starting point of "sequestered" (as biomass in life cycles) carbon.

Whereas when we burn all (approximation of total combustion) gets converted into CO2.

Nevertheless, burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the air that was not taken out of it "during our climate era" as trees do. And so, I use the wood stove (running off if trees that were cut anyway and would have gone to the dump, at a cost to the tree company) when it's cold enough for my minisplit to be ess efficient..(Though I'm a bit conflicted because I have solar panels, so even less efficient is better than CO2... But then again in winter I'm relying on the grid too because I make less, so maybe I should be tuning my minisplit vs wood stove usage based on how much power I make during winter...)

 

[mnowaczyk]

Another short simple article.

Climate Curious: Is burning wood for heat carbon neutral?

Many Minnesotans still use wood as either a primary or secondary source of heat for their homes. So, what’s the impact on carbon emissions?

www.mprnews.org

The first one I linked (I guess) implies that the guy is burning the brush outside in an effort to simply avoid the creation of methane, nothing about off-setting the fossil fuel usage.

This one states that the wood is chipped to make it burn more easily. That makes me hope that is the goal of all the tree surgeon companies. I hope they are taking those wood chips somewhere to be burnt instead of to rot in some landfill or be used for mulch.

Is mulch bad stuff? It sure seems so, especially when it’s intent is to stop plants from growing.

 

[stoveliker]

Another short simple article.

Climate Curious: Is burning wood for heat carbon neutral?

Many Minnesotans still use wood as either a primary or secondary source of heat for their homes. So, what’s the impact on carbon emissions?

www.mprnews.org

The first one I linked (I guess) implies that the guy is burning the brush outside in an effort to simply avoid the creation of methane, nothing about off-setting the fossil fuel usage.

This one states that the wood is chipped to make it burn more easily. That makes me hope that is the goal of all the tree surgeon companies. I hope they are taking those wood chips somewhere to be burnt instead of to rot in some landfill or be used for mulch.

Is mulch bad stuff? It sure seems so, especially when it’s intent is to stop plants from growing.

On the other hand it puts a lot of carbon into the soil. I've done this on very poor soil; first year, 4" of mulch, then two more years refilling to 4" again. Dig down after that, and the top 10" under the mulch was brown rather than red/yellow. That's carbon.
(It also helps keep moisture in. And it will aid plant growth eventually, if "weeds" are not pulled.)

 

[mnowaczyk]

This one makes it sound as if… as long as not everyone is doing it… it’s good to burn wood for heat. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/

The main problem they seem to cite is that if people are burning wood or pellets that are contributing to deforestation, or if the energy needed to deliver the fuel/wood is large, then it’s bad.

So burning the brush and trimmings from your own yard sounds like a good thing to do for heat, especially if it offsets the use of fossil fuels.

 

[EbS-P]

I will try to continue reading and figuring out how to reduce my carbon footprint.

heatpump hot water heater. Insulation. Line dry laundry. Add a mini split to the room you spend the most time in. Keeping you house thermostat lower(or higher in the summer) I think basically if you can electrify with new high efficiency it the the greener it is. As long at it doesn’t increase your total energy consumption.

Edit. My power is about 30% coal, 30 nuclear, and 30 gas. Rest renewables. Your make might make it even greener.

 

[woodgeek]

The confusion and people throwing up their hands is largely the result of deliberate misinformation by a large number of parties.

Think about the science of tobacco smoking causing lung cancer. While this was clearly demonstrated in the 1960s, throughout the 1960's and 1970's there were bunches of counter studies and reports that argued that the science wasn't settled! And a bunch of BS products like 'low tar' cigarettes got marketed that claimed to be safer (they weren't). For two decades a lot of people read all that chit, 'threw up their hands' and kept on smoking until those industry-backed studies and PR hacks were finally forced to cease and desist with legal penalties.

Those very same PR hacks and legal firms are now spreading misinformation TODAY about renewable energy, clean tech, EVs and global warming. Stick to scientific papers and govt docs and the facts are clear.

Speak of the Devil. A good article on these PR firms and their activities, in the context of the 'divestment movement'.

(broken link removed)

I grew up with a LOT of oil company advertising in print and on TV, that I still remember. It was all very triumphal, about how they made the world go round, gave us the power to do big things, to go where we wanted to go, to laugh at the winter cold. Freedom, justice and the american way. And counter to the endless 'Energy Crisis' messaging.

I honestly think that these ads were good and bad.

Bad: On the one hand they encouraged consumption, not to mention over consumption. How many people bought a bigger more 'macho' car over the last several decades bc of these ads? How many people have derided or shared climate misinformation on social bc they have had this "abundance == freedom" message drilled into their heads??

I drive a 2015 Volt and I feel perfectly free. And muy macho.

Good: It might surprise some here, but there is also a silver lining from these ads. I am, at root, an optimist. A humanist who believes that we can collectively solve our problems (whatever they may be) through cooperation, our inventiveness and technology. While admitting that our human abilities to do those things are very far from perfect. They are what they are and will be good enough in the crunch.

I am a 'techno-optimist'.

I was born in 1968, in the midst of a decadal baby-bust. This is attributed to really DOOMY press about geopolitics, terrible pollution and the impending end of the world. When my generation reached our peak working years, our small numbers tanked the US economic growth rate, helped drive off-shoring, leading leaders to juice the numbers with real estate speculation and ultimately the financial crisis. A few years later, we get Millennials, born after 1980, and we are back to normal growth! Thanks Obama.

The financial crisis was caused by doomy media in 1965-1975!

And as much as I feel Reagan was a villain who caused a lot of harm, he broke that doom cycle (which lasted through Carter's cardigan). And during the Morning in America, the oil majors were running ads of limitless abundance. And then when oil prices tanked in 1984, they all lost their shirts. Karma.

So, what do I worry about? I don't worry about climate change. I worry about climate change COVERAGE. Its really doomy, end of the world, oh woe is me, nothing can be done BS. Doomy enough that some young people will skip having kids. We are IN a decadal baby bust. And rather than rallying people to action (like buying renewables and EVs), the media are sowing discouragement to the delight of our opponents.

The fact of the matter is that all the first solutions to global warming are IN THE PIPELINE and rolling out at scale now. The next round of solutions we can already see, and will roll out when needed. It will be slower than we want, but it will happen, and we will come in at 2-3°C by 2100 and our grandkids will deal with that somehow. And that is a tragedy, but definitely NOT the end of the world.

But selling click-bait end of the world stories now is setting us up. When people finally realize the world is NOT going to end, they are gonna rub their bleary eyes and flip back to an abundance mindset, and any politician (on either side) that can own that (a la Reagan) will set the tone of the next 50 years. And then in 30 years (2050s) there will be another economic lost decade from our current baby bust. You heard it here first.

 

[mnowaczyk]

Speak of the Devil. A good article on these PR firms and their activities, in the context of the 'divestment movement'.

(broken link removed)

I grew up with a LOT of oil company advertising in print and on TV, that I still remember. It was all very triumphal, about how they made the world go round, gave us the power to do big things, to go where we wanted to go, to laugh at the winter cold. Freedom, justice and the american way. And counter to the endless 'Energy Crisis' messaging.

I honestly think that these ads were good and bad.

Bad: On the one hand they encouraged consumption, not to mention over consumption. How many people bought a bigger more 'macho' car over the last several decades bc of these ads? How many people have derided or shared climate misinformation on social bc they have had this "abundance == freedom" message drilled into their heads??

I drive a 2015 Volt and I feel perfectly free. And muy macho.

Good: It might surprise some here, but there is also a silver lining from these ads. I am, at root, an optimist. A humanist who believes that we can collectively solve our problems (whatever they may be) through cooperation, our inventiveness and technology. While admitting that our human abilities to do those things are very far from perfect. They are what they are and will be good enough in the crunch.

I am a 'techno-optimist'.

I was born in 1968, in the midst of a decadal baby-bust. This is attributed to really DOOMY press about geopolitics, terrible pollution and the impending end of the world. When my generation reached our peak working years, our small numbers tanked the US economic growth rate, helped drive off-shoring, leading leaders to juice the numbers with real estate speculation and ultimately the financial crisis. A few years later, we get Millennials, born after 1980, and we are back to normal growth! Thanks Obama.

The financial crisis was caused by doomy media in 1965-1975!

And as much as I feel Reagan was a villain who caused a lot of harm, he broke that doom cycle (which lasted through Carter's cardigan). And during the Morning in America, the oil majors were running ads of limitless abundance. And then when oil prices tanked in 1984, they all lost their shirts. Karma.

So, what do I worry about? I don't worry about climate change. I worry about climate change COVERAGE. Its really doomy, end of the world, oh woe is me, nothing can be done BS. Doomy enough that some young people will skip having kids. We are IN a decadal baby bust. And rather than rallying people to action (like buying renewables and EVs), the media are sowing discouragement to the delight of our opponents.

The fact of the matter is that all the first solutions to global warming are IN THE PIPELINE and rolling out at scale now. The next round of solutions we can already see, and will roll out when needed. It will be slower than we want, but it will happen, and we will come in at 2-3°C by 2100 and our grandkids will deal with that somehow. And that is a tragedy, but definitely NOT the end of the world.

But selling click-bait end of the world stories now is setting us up. When people finally realize the world is NOT going to end, they are gonna rub their bleary eyes and flip back to an abundance mindset, and any politician (on either side) that can own that (a la Reagan) will set the tone of the next 50 years. And then in 30 years (2050s) there will be another economic lost decade from our current baby bust. You heard it here first.

Thanks for the reply. I’m glad I saw this, after yesterday watching the Nova special about arctic sink holes and the massive amounts of methane being released into the atmosphere along with all the carbon from the melting permafrost. I am wondering why the oil companies aren’t all over that free methane that’s bubbling out of the ground that is sinking all over the place. I guess if the ground is sinking everywhere it might be hard to build capture devices everywhere.

I think I recently read that biomass rotting is about equal within a factor of 1:1.3 in producing CO2 every year as all of mankind does. But it sounds like the permafrost melting might dwarf both those numbers. I don’t know that it’s been calculated yet. If that’s the case, I have to admit, I wonder a bit about why I’m worrying about burning natural gas. Perhaps getting oil companies to capture the methane so we can burn it is what we need to do anyway if methane is really 30x the greenhouse gas as CO2.

That’s just the attitude of someone who really cares not only about global warming, but also the planet earth that I’m leaving to my kids who also worry about the planet. I know that I MYSELF am not going to change the world, but I do feel that I need to be doing something about it.

Mankind will most likely survive this. Perhaps a new world will stabilize with a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, bigger storms, more tornadoes and hurricanes. The world human population has never been so high, and I don’t know any reason it needs to be as high as it is. I’m not saying hat I want billions of people to die. However, it seems like our planet can’t deal emotionally with the COVID pandemic which probably hasn’t even dented the population growth.

I hope that we are teaching our children SOMETHING about sustainability, and that we don’t realize other terrible things we’ve done to this planet. Plastics in the ocean and global warming seem to be the big screw ups so far.

I wonder what I can do to make a difference.

 

[woodgeek]

Plenty of other screwups.... CFCs and ozone hole in the 1980s (solved by the Montreal protocol), and leaded gas (and paint) poisoning a generation or two of kids (in particular, me).

Not to mention the surge of PM2.5 from fossil fuels in the second half of the 20th century that caused all that cardiovascular disease (and Alzheimers), and benzene in gasoline (used to be up to 5%, which is why is smelled so sweet when I was a kid) that, combined with other carcinogens doubled the basal cancer rate in the US. Rates of all three (cancer, alzheimers and cardivascular disease) are dropping now.

Thanks to Nixon and his EPA.

Same old same old.

 

[ABMax24]

Thanks for the reply. I’m glad I saw this, after yesterday watching the Nova special about arctic sink holes and the massive amounts of methane being released into the atmosphere along with all the carbon from the melting permafrost. I am wondering why the oil companies aren’t all over that free methane that’s bubbling out of the ground that is sinking all over the place. I guess if the ground is sinking everywhere it might be hard to build capture devices everywhere.

I think I recently read that biomass rotting is about equal within a factor of 1:1.3 in producing CO2 every year as all of mankind does. But it sounds like the permafrost melting might dwarf both those numbers. I don’t know that it’s been calculated yet. If that’s the case, I have to admit, I wonder a bit about why I’m worrying about burning natural gas. Perhaps getting oil companies to capture the methane so we can burn it is what we need to do anyway if methane is really 30x the greenhouse gas as CO2.

That’s just the attitude of someone who really cares not only about global warming, but also the planet earth that I’m leaving to my kids who also worry about the planet. I know that I MYSELF am not going to change the world, but I do feel that I need to be doing something about it.

Mankind will most likely survive this. Perhaps a new world will stabilize with a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, bigger storms, more tornadoes and hurricanes. The world human population has never been so high, and I don’t know any reason it needs to be as high as it is. I’m not saying hat I want billions of people to die. However, it seems like our planet can’t deal emotionally with the COVID pandemic which probably hasn’t even dented the population growth.

I hope that we are teaching our children SOMETHING about sustainability, and that we don’t realize other terrible things we’ve done to this planet. Plastics in the ocean and global warming seem to be the big screw ups so far.

I wonder what I can do to make a difference.

There's no money in it, natural gas usually sells for under $5/thousand cubic feet, you've got to capture a lot of small bubbles to make a cubic foot, never mind a thousand. Then you have to separate it from the air, get it to market, etc.

 

[woodgeek]

I think I recently read that biomass rotting is about equal within a factor of 1:1.3 in producing CO2 every year as all of mankind does. But it sounds like the permafrost melting might dwarf both those numbers. I don’t know that it’s been calculated yet. If that’s the case, I have to admit, I wonder a bit about why I’m worrying about burning natural gas. Perhaps getting oil companies to capture the methane so we can burn it is what we need to do anyway if methane is really 30x the greenhouse gas as CO2.

I wonder what I can do to make a difference.

Big study dropped yesterday, in Science,

Massive methane emissions by oil and gas industry detected from space

For the first time ever on a global scale, using satellite imagery, scientists have quantified volumes of massive methane emissions due to fossil-fuel extraction activities and their impact on the climate. Their findings partly explain why official inventories generally underestimate the volume...

www.sciencedaily.com

The gist is that an EU satellite has detected enormous methane releases from space, which are from fossil fuel operations, and 100% intentional. Often consisting of purges of pipelines for repairs, etc.

Right now, there is waaaay more methane in the lower atmosphere than there should be from adding up known sources. Spot surveys on the ground near fossil fuel operations typically find ~5X more methane locally in the air than expected from the companies' reported/estimated leakage rates. Hmmm. I wonder what could be happening?

As @ABMax24 mentioned, methane is mostly an annoyance, a bulky (gaseous) byproduct of extracting more valuable and storable commodities. The price is so low (and the cost of getting it to market so high) that there is little financial incentive to capture it all. And a lot of that old gas infrastructure is leaky (like the distribution grids under the major cities), and not designed to be be zero emission---no fitting or pumps to allow for repairs without venting the pipe, etc. And another study has shown that gas ranges leak 5x more methane than previously appreciated, largely when lighting up (like gas ovens and HWHs that cycle on/off a lot) and from small leaks in fittings.

Gas stoves are even worse for the climate than previously thought, study shows

Stoves continuously leak small amounts of methane, emitting as much greenhouse gas as 500,000 cars put out in one year.

www.cbsnews.com

So, while you are worried about the permafrost, we have a bunch of companies on the ground blowing massive amounts of methane into the air right down the street from us. And you might have appliances in your home blowing methane!

Its so much, who is the problem?

Who is the real problem when it comes to climate change?

Is it economists? Lefty activists? Musk and Gates? The voting public? Nope.

noahpinion.substack.com

Spoiler: its the fossil fuel companies.

What can you do to make a difference? Go to the artic and lay down bubble wrap on the permafrost? Nope. Take steps to use LESS FOSSIL FUEL. Maybe switch your house to all electric (and minimize your electric use at the same time). And maybe divest. And maybe support politicians that give a chit about this issue. And tell pollsters you give a chit about this issue.

 

[Corey]

There's no money in it, natural gas usually sells for under $5/thousand cubic feet, you've got to capture a lot of small bubbles to make a cubic foot, never mind a thousand. Then you have to separate it from the air, get it to market, etc.

That is true. I knew a guy in the gas industry. A few years ago he was talking about the company drilling a big new well. The initial results came back on the gas stream and it was something like 1% helium (or less... it was definitely a 'tiny percent' number).

Company exec's got big grins on their faces as they now had a high production helium well to pay for the operation....and more, plus still had natural gas as a 'byproduct'.