Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

theranchhand t1_itrs110 wrote

Last century, we got good at cracking down on polluters releasing visible pollutants into the environment.

This century, we'll get good at cracking down on invisible pollutants.

787

majaha95 t1_its21el wrote

Next century, we'll get good at hiding in our caves from mutants and the toxic air outside.

535

skubaloob t1_its5gf3 wrote

Those of you who don’t plan on mutating due to the air. It just seems easier, honestly.

108

5Gmeme t1_itscdlk wrote

Urge to wear loincloth rising...

41

pbradley179 t1_itulepx wrote

Haha! My plan to not contribute to my 401K is paying off!

3

SandmantheMofo t1_ituvbq7 wrote

A set of lungs with some toxin filters built in would be a good mutation

0

magicwuff t1_itt7dz2 wrote

Next century, AI decides we are the pollutants.

35

welchplug t1_itu98r5 wrote

Next century, AI decides notices we are the pollutants

12

SandmantheMofo t1_ituyee0 wrote

The root cause of it all anyways, need it to notice before next century though.

2

Arthurs-towel42 t1_itrury9 wrote

Nice. The upgrades on this technology is helpful. To be able to pinpoint with more accuracy main offenders (not that it will make a difference to some) but to also monitor naturally occurring methane. As surface changes like permafrost melting, bogs, natural habit destruction, hopefully it can map out & collect that data too. What a useful system.

207

bunghoe t1_itsx6ks wrote

Amen. Now let’s see how long before it gets taken down due to the outrage and theatrics this causes.

40

Arthurs-towel42 t1_itt57ho wrote

Let them try, hopefully NASA has sunk a lot of money into this and doesn't bend over to geopolitics. Well I hope anyway.

10

Glutz-43 t1_ittkuyf wrote

Are we sure it’s naturally occurring or are there just a lot of Taco Bells in that area?

2

u9Nails t1_itruvsd wrote

That's really impressive that they can see methane from satellite.

160

cynical_gramps t1_its8dwx wrote

I mean you can detect it on planets in other solar systems

107

StaysAwakeAllWeek t1_itsr6oz wrote

The impressive thing here is the extreme sensitivity and resolution. They are measuring in the parts per million range with resolutions of tens of metres

88

rsn_e_o t1_itudrz4 wrote

Yeah it’s crazy where technology can lead us. A tiny box in space can just map these vast amounts of data out like it’s nothing

7

[deleted] t1_itthb63 wrote

[removed]

−5

[deleted] t1_ittqnno wrote

[removed]

14

[deleted] t1_itugl9v wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_itugnah wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_itugyle wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_ituhork wrote

[removed]

1

SheDidWhaaaat t1_itthl99 wrote

This must be over my husband's gaming room

24

audiobone t1_ittmzuw wrote

Was waiting for a comment like this. Thank you, it was a gas.

12

wdwerker t1_itsfemp wrote

Poorly capped oil wells are a contributor. Apparently there are thousands of them that companies sell off to a shell that goes bankrupt to avoid the responsibility.

140

Just_wanna_talk t1_ittouik wrote

I've always felt we need some sort of company insurance system to pay for oil gas and mining operations.

Have a company pay a yearly fee in order to extract minerals or oil and gas which goes into a fund and when they close operations and can prove everything has been done correctly they get half of whatever they paid into the fund back. The other half remains in the fund.

If they do not close down operations correctly or they go bankrupt and cannot, the funds can be used to do it for them. It could also be used to clean up environmental disasters like oil spills in the ocean or tailings pond breaches from mines, etc.

53

but-imnotadoctor t1_ittz6x9 wrote

But that make profit small. Small profit bad. Big profit good.

Honestly, this is a brilliant idea. That's how I know it will never happen.

31

Phoenix4264 t1_itusbur wrote

That is essentially what CERCLA (The Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980), better known as Superfund, is supposed to be. It was originally funded by a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries. The tax was never high enough, and in 1995 it expired and was funded from the general funds after that. The tax was reinstated in 2021.

8

TheReal-JoJo103 t1_ituuul7 wrote

This is how they fund decommissioning wind/solar so they can't just go bankrupt. Either through an account held by a third party or through performance bonds. Granted decommissioning a wind/solar farm is far easier since they aren't releasing hard to trace gasses or hiding issues underground that can well up decades later.

2

saposmak t1_itt7imq wrote

A Shell, you say?

28

wdwerker t1_itt81jc wrote

Shell companies used to hide their ownership.

3

saposmak t1_itt8t4j wrote

Heh, I get it, just making a silly joke.

6

RaiderMan1 t1_ittzog5 wrote

The bankruptcy part is not real common. Working in the industry, I know a few companies with that rep, but they’re rare. Now why do the courts pay execs of these companies millions to “steer the company out of bankruptcy”? I have not idea.

8

alwaysadmiring t1_itvv1e0 wrote

Oil and gas companies that are newly being created in Alberta from what I understand require a deposit to be paid upfront for the wells they plan to drill to cover expenses should they Need to reclaim The wells to a safe environment. What this forces is basically no shell companies being created to simply take all the liability and no actual actions.

Also wanted to mention I’ve used aerial surveillance vendors on more local scales to fly across all the oil and gas properties across AB and SK that use FLIR and gas leak detection technology to indicate to us GPS coordinates where they noticed CH4 (methane) higher than 2 PPM (baseline). I’m not sure what the satellite technology costs will be but certainly technology that is very useful And already being used to ensure we minimize leaks where possible !

2

wdwerker t1_itvx228 wrote

Good idea going forward but still closing the barn after they all escaped.

1

aotus_trivirgatus t1_ittrwia wrote

"This image shows a methane plume 2 miles (3 kilometers) long detected southeast of Carlsbad, New Mexico."

I have driven through this area. Methane is odorless. There's more than methane in the air in those parts. Something you can definitely smell, something sulfurous.

78

80rexij t1_itum8pu wrote

I have a friend in New Mexico who I've visited twice on road trips. Both times, I only stayed a single night and by morning I had horrible nausea that took a couple days to go away. There's a constant heavy smell of oil, I'm pretty sure that's what was making me sick. There's got to be some long term health issues for everyone who lives there. There's no way it's healthy.

17

crazydr13 t1_itujweo wrote

Raw natural gas is often “sour” (has a bunch of sulfur). NG is desulfurized to make it “sweet.” You could absolutely be smelling co-emitted sulfur species

15

phiz36 t1_itrrfkg wrote

Russian permafrost thawing should be a big one.

75

Arthurs-towel42 t1_ittnp44 wrote

That's the ones I'm thinking of. The Siberian craters & methane explosions due to permafrost melting would be amazing to monitor.

10

Jzerious t1_ittuqzb wrote

Amazing as in catastrophic right ?

3

Arthurs-towel42 t1_itw6kuo wrote

Catastrophic? Yeh I would 100% agree with that. Amazing as in technology can precisely register it & observe.

1

Green__lightning t1_ituv2z3 wrote

So what can be done about that? And is there anything that can be done about it in the case of somewhere like Russia where the melting is otherwise advantageous?

1

phiz36 t1_itv6hcb wrote

No clue. Seems like nothing can be done unless it magically stops thawing.

1

alstergee t1_ittikxc wrote

Now to untie the hands of the EPA / international environmental agency watchdogs and put a grinding halt to mega polluters around the globe.

39

-Jerbear45- t1_ituu2pa wrote

The worst part of it all is that for 99.9% of companies the EPA is relatively harmless. If they find a violation their goal is to help you fix the issue, not permanently shut you down. If they do harm the oil companies I think most people wouldn't care too much.

9

alstergee t1_itx6im3 wrote

Theyve made nothing but record breaking profits every single year for decades off our backs with artificial price inflation so yeah they can suck a 100 billion dollar fine per incident down with zero pain to anything but their overinflated sense of self worth and egos

2

Shodan30 t1_its9ehh wrote

Dude, so I had Popeyes chicken that night.. didn’t have to call me out..

25

FuckRandyMoss t1_itssgwr wrote

Ahhhh yes now we will be able to detect what companies are polluting and do absolutely nothing with that information lmfao

20

Lex8P t1_itrnuhv wrote

I knew my farts were impressive... They found me!

17

666pool t1_itst917 wrote

Are you a cow? Humans produce hydrogen sulfate. Cows produce methane.

12

carbonated_iron t1_itsvd86 wrote

Hydrogen sulfate is sulfuric acid…

6

CuttyAllgood t1_ittjoj1 wrote

Not exactly, right? It’s a salt of sulfuric acid, so it only becomes sulfuric acid when dissolved in a solution.

Which is why all of my wet farts burn so badly.

7

Lex8P t1_itto833 wrote

So this explains why my chair smells so bad and has a hole in it

4

Understitious t1_itttmvw wrote

There's a good article about fart gas composition on Chemistry World (you can google it yourself so I don't get banned for posting a link). Anyways, turns out around a third of us DO produce methane. So yes, some of us are indeed cows. Also, our farts often contain tiny amounts of hydrogen sulfIDE (H2S) but not H2SO4, unless you're making some seriously questionable dietary choices.

Fun facts about H2S:

  • you can smell it at <1ppm
  • above 20 ppm can cause airway irritation and shortness of breath
  • above 100 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health
  • around 150 ppm you actually stop smelling it after a while. Your sensory system gets so fatigued by the constant stimulation it just peaces out.
4

Rocket3431 t1_itsrnjf wrote

The image in Carlsbad NM is just an old oil/gas well site. I wonder if its supposed to be flaring and the flames out. That or its got one hell of a leak.

9

SolidDiarrhea t1_ittzc5h wrote

The rainbow of colors shows an extrapolation of data. There is a part of the article that explains it.

1

IntravenousDrugs t1_itt7g08 wrote

Why don't they map China, India, Brazil and Russia? It's a big fat zero over what we presume are the most of the most serious emitters.

9

brennenderopa t1_ittj29v wrote

So we do not start at all and resign to "well the earth is fucked anyway"? I think this is a weak argument, the moment they start with Brazil, anyone could argue "Why not start in the US?"

7

_craq_ t1_itty4qi wrote

The largest concentrated sources of methane emissions are fossil fuel extractors. Fracking in the USA, oil in the middle east, oil & gas in Russia. I wouldn't expect China, India or Brazil to be among the worst offenders. Of course, they have high greenhouse gas emissions too. China and India still burn a lot of coal. Brazil has a high rate of deforestation.

5

BafangFan t1_itsncci wrote

Any mention of cow farms as significant emitters via this technology?

6

Archangel1313 t1_ittcqka wrote

There's really no comparison. These leaks are pumping thousands of tons of methane directly into the atmosphere every day, and there are a lot of them around the world. No matter how many cow farts you count, it's a drop in the bucket compared to shit like this.

17

somedave t1_ittvm0z wrote

Cows tend to be more spread out than waste disposal units or oilfields.

Cows and Rice paddies are big emitters because we have so many of them.

7

hu-kers-newhey t1_itu80a7 wrote

I’m really interested in seeing what New Zealand looks like with EMIT mapping.

There’s a huge push here talking about how our dairy farming is bad for methane but I’d be curious to know if this machine picks it up vs a standard landfill.

5

Ben_B_Allen t1_itvhj3e wrote

Farming emissions are way too low for this satellite.

2

mysticalfruit t1_its05d1 wrote

Looks up my address... I knew my taco bell habit was hurting the environment!!

4

V3ndeTTaLord t1_itunncf wrote

Good, now fine them until they improve the situation because I payed fucking 200 euro because I accidentally drove 1 minute in a low emission zone.

2

Ben_B_Allen t1_itvhanh wrote

Geophysicist in this field here. The detection threshold of this satellite is really bad, several tons per hour. GHGSat can detect 100 kg/h ! There is also public satellites that can do better.

2

anotherhumanperson t1_itvltqx wrote

This is why you fund NASA’s earth science division. While you all applaud spaceX (a glorified transportation company) and celebrate lunar&Martian space bases (pure hubris),these other less sexy divisions are trying to literally save our dying planet from this slow motion extinction. We need a giant shift priorities.

2

TheDoon t1_ittxztp wrote

I saw we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure. :)

1

SolidDiarrhea t1_ittz0bd wrote

Makes sense why a certain group didn't want to keep NASA funded.

1

Harry-Gato t1_ituf0b2 wrote

Can methane be trapped and used as fuel to generate energy?

1

itsaname123456789 t1_ituz872 wrote

Here's the interactive map with data that I could find.

Its really slow so I turned several layers off before trying to move the map location.

Carbon Mapper

1

IamRasters t1_itw297q wrote

Name and shame. Let the internets sleuths track these corporations down and give them the heat that they’re doling out on everyone.

1

zwickthegreat t1_itwaqog wrote

I'm so glad, that I have invested my money in hybrid car so I save the planet! 😂😂

1

Crenshawd t1_itwgfyo wrote

Looks like the well pad that the plume is originating from is very old. Imagery going back to 1985 still shows it there with grass growing onto the pad even then. This is an old legacy well/battery that was built before anyone in the industry had even an ounce of care about it I imagine. On top of that the facility probably has fallen into disrepair for all we know.

Strange thing is I was just on a well pad that is shown in this image like a month ago. Weird to know that I was just sitting in a cloud of methane likely.

1

rocketsocks t1_itwvi1k wrote

Atmospheric methane is responsible for about a quarter of the current level of unnatural warming we are experiencing, which the impact of climate change forward by several years to decades compared to the timeline we'd be on with just CO2 emissions. So this is a very important part of the mess we are in right now, especially if methane emissions continue to rise.

1

RageFurnace404 t1_its0ft0 wrote

If any of these are private companies, shut them down immediately.

0

Hopsblues t1_its5kfv wrote

Well, give them a chance to address the issue.

16

donkeylipsh t1_its7seq wrote

Depends. If these are existing regulations that they've failed to comply with, then they already had their chance.

8

ZHammerhead71 t1_itsw0cp wrote

Oh? You failed your smog test on your car? To jail with you. Auction the car. You failed to comply with the existing regulations, you had your chance.

3

but-imnotadoctor t1_ittzo6r wrote

Was I criminally negligent in modifying my car? Did I intentionally ignore a clear problem, or do a piss poor job managing it? What if I totally absolve myself by selling my car with a known problem to a separate legal entity from myself, that's still under my control, and have that legal entity declare bankruptcy so I don't suffer any of the penalties?

What a fucking straw man argument.

2

Naschen t1_itu17bt wrote

More like your car is missing parts that it should have on it and you've been avoiding getting it tested for years.

2

Alpine_Z28 t1_itsh22c wrote

So you're going to give nationalized methane polluters a pass?

6

juan2141 t1_itt4htb wrote

Maybe just fine them and give them a chance fix the problem.

1

Alpine_Z28 t1_ittdex3 wrote

Yeah good luck getting the likes of China, India and Saudi Arabia to pay up for that 😂

2

9babydill t1_ittduod wrote

>According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), landfill gas (LFG) comprises 17.7 percent of all U.S. methane emissions. Landfill methane in 2011 accounted for 103 million metric tonnes of carbon equivalent released into the atmosphere. Methane is a short-lived climate pollutant with significant warming potential, and over a 20 year period, one ton of methane causes 72 times more warming than one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2).

do you compost your food instead of contributing to methane release in landfills?

−2

RageFurnace404 t1_ituwks9 wrote

I do compost my food waste, yes. I also make sure to purchase as little single-use plastic as possible, and re-use plastic containers as much as possible (I have a whole cabinet just for leftover boxes I've saved. Use them for gifts and storing small items around the house).

How much food does ConAgra waste in a given day I wonder that doesn't go to landfills, hmmm? Any other stupid questions you want to ask?

1

OrigamiMax t1_ittp2me wrote

Let me hazard a guess:

  • China

  • China

  • China

  • China

  • India

  • Maybe the USA

0

lan69 t1_ittyg27 wrote

Wrong.

This is why people should read the articles before commenting.

6

somedave t1_ittviri wrote

Turkmenistan and Iran are the only places that are mentioned besides the US (Carlsbad, New Mexico). The Turkmenistan site emits far more than the other two.

5

Robeditor t1_ittr4mx wrote

I can explain.... See, I went to taco bell earlier and...

0

Archangel1313 t1_ittch0o wrote

And vegans still want us to believe that cow farts are the problem?

−4

janojyys t1_ittqm6e wrote

27% of US methane came from cattle and another 9% from manure. 32% from natural gas/petroleum systems. So yes cows are a problem (not to mention all the other massive environmental problems of animal production)

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane

6

Archangel1313 t1_ittvf3x wrote

Cows produce less than 2% of the total annual global greenhouse gas emissions.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8567486/

It just sounds worse when you put it in percentages of a percentage. When put in perspective, it's a drop in the bucket. This is classic misdirection. The fossil fuel industry would love it if we wasted our time going after the meat industry instead of them.

4

janojyys t1_ituqk2k wrote

Depending on the source, roughly 1/3 or 1/4th of global ghg emissions come from food of which the majority come from agriculture and land use for agriculture (of which the majority is cattle).

There honestly isn't much to debate here. I'm not trying to downplay fossile fuel industry emissions but food is equally as important even if it conflicts with your meat eating.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9

3

RedLotusVenom t1_ituvyu1 wrote

Methane is a 100 times worse greenhouse effect than CO2 though, so that 2% has a much higher impact than you’re representing. And guess what? If we stop breeding them, that 2% disappears. Not to mention the emissions from growing food just to feed them.

But you can’t live without steak I guess, so go off

1

marklein t1_ittfnbp wrote

When you're burning the planet to the ground you address ALL the problems.

5

Archangel1313 t1_ittfv78 wrote

No...you tackle the biggest problems first, then mop up the small ones once you've stabilized the situation. That's triage.

−1

marklein t1_ittkdvt wrote

Triage exists to prioritize action when faced with less labor than is needed for a crisis. Triage is not needed to address global warming because we have the people necessary to address all causes. Yes, definitely address the biggest items ASAP, but those have no bearing on addressing all the other causes.

7

Archangel1313 t1_ittldgk wrote

Wut? Are you seriously saying we have time to fuck around with this? We aren't even coming close to addressing the largest contributor to global warming...we're too busy banning plastic straws, and complaining about cow farts.

Methane from cows totals about 2% of our total global emissions. Burning fossil fuels for energy equals about 70%. These campaigns to shift the priorities to the smaller contributors is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants. It's a joke that people keep falling for the same trick over and over again.

−4

but-imnotadoctor t1_ittzsgx wrote

Source on your percentages?

1

kaba40k t1_itthdwp wrote

To be fair, nothing in the article suggested that these emissions contribute more than the cows.

The second thought is that these emissions are not purely "problems to address", they are negative side effects of some positive effect (just like the farm cows emissions are). So the process imo would less resemble medical triage, and more resemble a budget balancing exercise, where you need to take a little bit from here and a little bit from there, as it won't be possible to just eliminate all factories or all cows.

4

lan69 t1_ittynyc wrote

It’s not just cow farts. It’s also the fact you’re using oil/gas to grow crops for these animals, house them and ship them. There’s a whole lot of energy and land being used to raise livestock. But whatever you like your strawman

5

-eXnihilo t1_ittiwkq wrote

Great PR and Free Fuel! Capture this stuff, u/ElonMuskOfficial With everyone making methane engines, secure your fuel sources! Also good for the environment, this stuff should be burned.

−4

[deleted] t1_ittngto wrote

Shut them down immediately like with the full force of a military or something this is fucking ridiculous

−4

sumelar t1_ittoycz wrote

Yeah don't bother to find out why they exist or whether what they're doing could even be done better with current tech, just go with a knee jerk reaction like an idiot.

5

[deleted] t1_itx3uwr wrote

Imagine defending one of the fifty worst polluters lmfao. “Be nice to them! Think of how we could continue to enable them 🥹”

0

sumelar t1_itx73y8 wrote

Imagine thinking that's anywhere close to what I said.

I see some stupid shit on reddit, but you really take the prize.

1

[deleted] t1_itxhg4k wrote

Keep accepting companies raping the earth. I’m sure they’ll keep a spot for you during the mass heatwaves of the future

1