Don’t a lot of places capture methane from their landfills for energy? How can the quantities be unknown when you’re capturing and messing the output gases? This can’t be some magical surprise.
Probably better to just burn the trash? You get some energy, no (lingering, at least) methane leaks and you can capture and bury the really nasty stuff which is not combusted.
And you'll permanently lose whatever compounds are in that garbage by burning it - everything disintegrates into co2, water, nitrous oxide and a few other basic elements. On top of that, burning anything will always result in particulate matter emissions and solid residue, which is highly toxic as it concentrates everything that doesn't burn.
Now imagine in 20 years we find some way of cheaply separating plastic polymers into raw precursors, say by designing some bacteria or fungus that selectively targets a specific polymer. Had we just burned all of the old trash, we'd be out of luck - but assuming we find such a process, old landfills just became gold mines.
I believe they do gather the methane, but the article mentions leaks, suggesting that the cap over the waste which is used to collect the methane allowed some of it to leak out (thus not being accounted for).
They do, but the gas (which is half CO2, half methane) is contaminated with silicon-containing gases (derived from silicones, including from parchment paper and cosmetics!) If you try to burn the gas in a turbine the silicon coats the combustors and turbine blades with glass.
The amount of methane generated from landfills can vary and decreases over time.
Here's a 40+ year old landfill that didn't generate enough methane to operate its original flaring station, but still generated a significant amount of methane so the station had to be replaced:
Exactly, I mean, if climate change was actually impacting anyone, people with skin in the game would be adjusting to it. Especially insurance companies, who can only make a profit if their models accurately assess risks. Obviously it's all bullshit since no insurance companies are pulling out of states, reducing coverage, or increasing premiums in states disproportionately affected by catastrophic weather events.
Well, except for the ones that are doing exactly that.
> I wonder why the insurance and real estate markets are not responding at all to all ocean-front property soon becoming worthless?
Insurances are already reacting. Just a few days ago there was an article showing how home insurances are cancelling contracts based on drone and other aerial surveillance, yeeting people for the horror of having a trampoline in their garden. And beyond that, insurance companies are pulling out of risky markets... and of course, people are crying foul and want the government to bail them out [1].
Edit: Seems like you've been downvoted to grey - I don't get why, because (other than not being aware about recent developments in insurance markets) you are raising a legitimate question.
They asked a rhetorical question to frame an apparently misinformed opinion as if it were fact. It's interesting for discussion, but also likely to attract some ire, particularly since it's unpopular, flies in the face of what we think we know, and unsubstantiated.
The oceanfront properties will only become worthless when the land directly beneath them is submerged because the people who own those properties can enjoy them just fine with or without insurance coverage.
Yeah they can enjoy these properties even if they do not have insurance any more... but then they want for government to bail them out on the next storm/flood/fire/whatever, and that just won't scale much longer.
> The oceanfront properties will only become worthless when the land directly beneath them is submerged because the people who own those properties can enjoy them just fine with or without insurance coverage.
Part of the value of real estate is the short term use of that real estate.
Part of the value is the resale value.
If anthropogenic climate change is really causing sea levels to rise, then the predicted future resale value of oceanfront property must be near zero, which must be causing prices to drop sharply.
Except the prices are not dropping.
Markets predict reality better than most predictors.
> Insurances are already reacting. Just a few days ago there was an article showing how home insurances are cancelling contracts based on drone and other aerial surveillance, yeeting people for the horror of having a trampoline in their garden.
If anthropogenic climate change is real, then the insurance on oceanfront properties would be cancelled. That is not happening.
A trampoline leads to neighbors' kids jumping on it and breaking legs, which leads to lawsuits, which lead to losses for insurance companies.
Trampolines are a good reason to cancel homeowners insurance.
Revoking a building's insurance against fire, flood or storm for the presence of an unauthorized trampoline is nuts. The trampoline in the garden has zero effect on the likelihood of a fire occurring.
I have seen little consideration made to the carbon cycle which produced this result of methane output in landfills.
It doesn't come from nothing. Methane is a compound generally produced by the breaking down of organic compounds in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic decomposition)
Organic compounds generally gain carbon from the atmosphere. So where is the extra carbon entering the system?
Should the focus not be on disposal methods but on ensuring sustainable regeneration of farmland in this case?
>Should the focus not be on disposal methods but on ensuring sustainable regeneration of farmland in this case?
Isn't "sustainable regeneration of farmland" (whatever that means) orthogonal to methane being generated from landfills? After all, food waste in landfills generate the same amount of carbon regardless of how they're farmed. It's not like a rotting tomato that's grown using "sustainable regeneration of farmland" magically emits less methane than one that's grown conventionally.
Sometimes I don't know if people are kidding or something.
Obviously things ending up in landfills is not sustainable.
It's rather wiser to use the remains of the tomato to directly or indirectly make fertilizer to fertilize new tomato plants, eg by composting them [1]. Now you've sort of got a cycle going on there, which you could in theory sustain indefinitely. (Hence the word.) Composting has been done since at least roman times.
Properly done, you can reduce methane emissions from composting considerably. (Releasing mostly CO2 back into the air, and the remainder is sufficiently low for 'the environment' to be able to deal with [2])
If you at least believe in the conservation of mass [3], you'll realize that [C released from composting] = [C the Tomato originally captured from the air in photosynthesis].
I'm summarizing entire fields of science, so there's devils in the details here. But closed cycles of chemical reactions where matter cycles endlessly (driven by incoming energy from sunlight, and ultimately emitting waste heat back to space), is a real thing in Biological systems.
[2] assuming composting were the only methane source, there'd be more than sufficient methane sinks to handle the flow. Unfortunately, it's not the only methane source. But we still need to deal with the organic waste.
[3] I mean, for one: the total mass of our planet isn't noticeably changing much, that I'm aware of.
> Sometimes I don't know if people are kidding or something. [...]
>It's rather wiser to use the remains of the tomato to directly or indirectly make fertilizer to fertilize new tomato plants [...]
Maybe you should read my comment and the comment I was replying to more carefully. The comment I was replying to says in pretty clear terms that we shouldn't care about "disposal methods"
> Should the focus not be on disposal methods but on ensuring sustainable regeneration of farmland in this case?
Your suggestion of using rotten tomatoes as compost or whatever arguably falls under "disposal methods".
I was directly responding to the implicit question about 'sustainable regeneration of farmland', where you added '(whatever that means) '.
I explained one common sustainable regeneration method, and I touch why it meets the required elements of regeneration and sustainability.
You arbitrarily reclassify this as a "disposal method"; without including any counter-reasoning.
You berate me for not reading and not providing an alternative to mere disposal.
As a reminder: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." --https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> It's rather wiser to use the remains of the tomato to directly or indirectly make fertilizer to fertilize new tomato plants, eg by composting them [1].
Ask any agricultural engineer why that is a bad idea. Tomato pathogens from the old culture end up in your new one. That's one of the ideas behind culture rotation. But one could use that compost for other unrelated cultures like apple trees or grape vine.
Huh, here's where my knowledge ends. In theory aerobic composting would run up the temperature of the compost, thus killing most pathogens. In practice clearly not, then.
Is it because composting is not always done perfectly? Or is it because some tomato pathogens intrinsically survive the process due to eg. heat resistance?
Dunno, it's just a bad idea. The pathogens can survive in the ground over several seasons, so I'm not surprised if they also survive in the compost. It's not only bacteria and viruses but also fungi. Best practice is to use pathogen free soil and compost, crop rotation. There is even a warning against composting rotten potatoes (related to tomatoes) for avoiding late blight.
Rotting puts that carbon back into the atmosphere.
None of that has much to do with sustainable farming, which is about soil fertility, pest control, and micronutrients like fixated nitrogen - and not raw carbon.
Which is why nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides have been so important in producing mass yield improvements in farming.
Are there ways of doing this more naturally, using crop rotating, etc? Yes. In field Composting can help a little too, but has major disease and pest vector issues.
They’re also less efficient when you factor in transportation and land use costs. And they don’t really have any impact on macro level carbon cycle stuff.
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees? Or crossing wires?
Plastics in landfill also break down to make methane. The carbon source in this case is fossil fuel.
Also, if the food gains the carbon as CO2 but releases it on decomposition as CH4, that’s a big increase in GHG potential, we want to avoid that.
Moreover it shouldn’t matter the original carbon source - if we have the opportunity to capture some methane from concentrated point source like a landfill we should be jumping at it. One of the easiest marginal tons of CO2e saved
Plants get most of their structure by pulling in carbon from the atmosphere and using it to make more plant. Regenerative organic farming generally works to keep that captured carbon in the soil, by using excess plant matter as soil amendment, to put it simply. From what I have seen this has the potential for massive carbon retention over chemical intensive industrial farming which generally does not focus on the use of organic matter as soil amendment.
Good soil has benefits but plants don't get carbon from their roots. They make sugar in the leaves and make that into more complex molecules for growing.
The plants get carbon from the atmosphere of course, but retaining organic matter in the soil, which captures that carbon, has other value.
"Soil organic matter significantly improves the soil's capacity to store and supply essential nutrients (such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium), and to retain toxic elements. It allows the soil to cope with changes in soil acidity, and helps soil minerals to decompose faster."
You are double counting in multiple different ways.
Over 100 years it’s 80x for years 0-19 years and 15x for years 20-99 which averages to 28x by weight. Largely because 1 ton of methane turns into almost 3 tons of CO2.
Except when you start with CO2 at 44.01 g/mol it turns into CH4 at 16.04 g/mol you only get 16.04/44.01 ~= 36.4% as much methane and thus 36.4% of that global warming.
Net result for years 0-19 it’s 29x as bad and years 20-99 it’s 5.5x as bad. And considering the relatively trivial amount of CO2 released as methane vs sequestered in landfills they are a massive reduction in climate change.
We should really have three bins: organic waste, recyclable waste, everything else. We should be composting organic waste, not simply throwing it in a giant pile with everything else where it can sit be useless. Think of all that topsoil that has gone into creating the remains of the leftover food in these landfills, and instead of using it to create more fertile soil, it just sits there and rots with old televisions and refrigerators and pizza boxes.
In Australia organic waste bins are becoming more common as councils adopt some sustainability guidelines. One of the biggest issue they have is people placing "cardboard", like coffee cups, that are lined with plasitc or have toxic inks. The amount of contamination isn't insignificant unfortunately making the whole program a bit less promising in the long term.
The amount of confusion with the multiple bins is surprising at first glance
As an Australian, and as someone who is relatively switched on and pays attention to things in general, I do not know what I can and cannot recycle -- it has changed a few times in the past few years, and of course whenever I move to a new council area I have to contend with new rules.
What can you recycle? Who knows. Bottles, usually, but only if they're clear, green, or brown glass. And not if they're broken. Definitely no glass from mirrors. Also, probably not the bottle lids, or the the triggers from spray bottles. Aerosol cans? Sure. But not their caps. Aluminium foil, yes, but only if it's not got food contamination on it, so no. Same with aluminium baking tins and tin cans (actually steel!) from canned food. Can I recycle my pizza boxes in this council? Currently, yes, but only if they're not too greasy. What's too greasy? Still who knows. Coffee cups are recyclable in some councils, but not all, by the way. The lids are recyclable in basically all of them. As an aside, there are issues with recycling soft plastics, even if the plastic is actually recyclable, so be careful to make sure that even if it has the right symbol on it, it's not too bendy.
All of that, and ... well, it doesn't matter what I do, because my neighbour just yeets literally everything that smells like plastic or paper into their recycling bin, so my careful work is just commingled with garbage anyway.
This feels like an over-wrought analogy for a lot of things in my life, really.
And that's extra confusing because some of the bins use a wineglass with a broken rim as the symbol for glass, but the council flyer goes and states no broken glass.
In my city, it’s brown, blue, and green bins, respectively. They are slowly changing the green bins to black ones, presumably for consistent messaging with the rest of the state, but it will take years.
Usually not - modern landfills are completely enclosed (sealed in plastic) and primarily composed of things that don't compost at all, like metals and plastics. The materials in a landfill aren't recovered.
By comparison, the point of composting is to break down the organic waste where it can be reused as soil and fertilizer.
And yet people are still allowed to have more than two kids. Humans are truly insane.
Edit: Downvote me all you want, it won’t change the fact that we’re consuming resources at a significantly faster pace than the planet can provide them and people having three or more kids are a huge part of the problem, especially in developed countries. Deal with it.
To be fair, in many wealthier economies, people are having less and less kids. South Korea has been unable to revert this trend despite aggressive incentives.
isn't there a new satellite coming online soon that will be taking pictures of methane emitters?
I vaguely remember reading about a planned project that would be able to call companies and countries out on their actual methane production, not just what they report
65 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadhttps://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-question...
https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-garbage-gamble-amage...
Now imagine in 20 years we find some way of cheaply separating plastic polymers into raw precursors, say by designing some bacteria or fungus that selectively targets a specific polymer. Had we just burned all of the old trash, we'd be out of luck - but assuming we find such a process, old landfills just became gold mines.
You do realize that vinyl is far more worse than PVC?
Here's a 40+ year old landfill that didn't generate enough methane to operate its original flaring station, but still generated a significant amount of methane so the station had to be replaced:
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/04/04/cesar-chavez-park-me...
Well, except for the ones that are doing exactly that.
https://www.newsweek.com/florida-insurance-crisis-explained-...
Insurances are already reacting. Just a few days ago there was an article showing how home insurances are cancelling contracts based on drone and other aerial surveillance, yeeting people for the horror of having a trampoline in their garden. And beyond that, insurance companies are pulling out of risky markets... and of course, people are crying foul and want the government to bail them out [1].
Edit: Seems like you've been downvoted to grey - I don't get why, because (other than not being aware about recent developments in insurance markets) you are raising a legitimate question.
[1] https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/opinion/columns/2024/03/1...
Part of the value of real estate is the short term use of that real estate.
Part of the value is the resale value.
If anthropogenic climate change is really causing sea levels to rise, then the predicted future resale value of oceanfront property must be near zero, which must be causing prices to drop sharply.
Except the prices are not dropping.
Markets predict reality better than most predictors.
If anthropogenic climate change is real, then the insurance on oceanfront properties would be cancelled. That is not happening.
A trampoline leads to neighbors' kids jumping on it and breaking legs, which leads to lawsuits, which lead to losses for insurance companies.
Trampolines are a good reason to cancel homeowners insurance.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.
It doesn't come from nothing. Methane is a compound generally produced by the breaking down of organic compounds in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic decomposition)
Organic compounds generally gain carbon from the atmosphere. So where is the extra carbon entering the system?
Should the focus not be on disposal methods but on ensuring sustainable regeneration of farmland in this case?
Isn't "sustainable regeneration of farmland" (whatever that means) orthogonal to methane being generated from landfills? After all, food waste in landfills generate the same amount of carbon regardless of how they're farmed. It's not like a rotting tomato that's grown using "sustainable regeneration of farmland" magically emits less methane than one that's grown conventionally.
Obviously things ending up in landfills is not sustainable.
It's rather wiser to use the remains of the tomato to directly or indirectly make fertilizer to fertilize new tomato plants, eg by composting them [1]. Now you've sort of got a cycle going on there, which you could in theory sustain indefinitely. (Hence the word.) Composting has been done since at least roman times.
Properly done, you can reduce methane emissions from composting considerably. (Releasing mostly CO2 back into the air, and the remainder is sufficiently low for 'the environment' to be able to deal with [2])
If you at least believe in the conservation of mass [3], you'll realize that [C released from composting] = [C the Tomato originally captured from the air in photosynthesis].
I'm summarizing entire fields of science, so there's devils in the details here. But closed cycles of chemical reactions where matter cycles endlessly (driven by incoming energy from sunlight, and ultimately emitting waste heat back to space), is a real thing in Biological systems.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost
[2] assuming composting were the only methane source, there'd be more than sufficient methane sinks to handle the flow. Unfortunately, it's not the only methane source. But we still need to deal with the organic waste.
[3] I mean, for one: the total mass of our planet isn't noticeably changing much, that I'm aware of.
(edits for clarity and readability)
How noticeable they are will depend on how you've decided to define noticable.
>It's rather wiser to use the remains of the tomato to directly or indirectly make fertilizer to fertilize new tomato plants [...]
Maybe you should read my comment and the comment I was replying to more carefully. The comment I was replying to says in pretty clear terms that we shouldn't care about "disposal methods"
> Should the focus not be on disposal methods but on ensuring sustainable regeneration of farmland in this case?
Your suggestion of using rotten tomatoes as compost or whatever arguably falls under "disposal methods".
I explained one common sustainable regeneration method, and I touch why it meets the required elements of regeneration and sustainability.
You arbitrarily reclassify this as a "disposal method"; without including any counter-reasoning.
You berate me for not reading and not providing an alternative to mere disposal.
As a reminder: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." --https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Ask any agricultural engineer why that is a bad idea. Tomato pathogens from the old culture end up in your new one. That's one of the ideas behind culture rotation. But one could use that compost for other unrelated cultures like apple trees or grape vine.
Is it because composting is not always done perfectly? Or is it because some tomato pathogens intrinsically survive the process due to eg. heat resistance?
https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/tomato-diseases-disorders...
Growing plants pulls carbon from the atmosphere.
Rotting puts that carbon back into the atmosphere.
None of that has much to do with sustainable farming, which is about soil fertility, pest control, and micronutrients like fixated nitrogen - and not raw carbon.
Which is why nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides have been so important in producing mass yield improvements in farming.
Are there ways of doing this more naturally, using crop rotating, etc? Yes. In field Composting can help a little too, but has major disease and pest vector issues.
They’re also less efficient when you factor in transportation and land use costs. And they don’t really have any impact on macro level carbon cycle stuff.
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees? Or crossing wires?
Also, if the food gains the carbon as CO2 but releases it on decomposition as CH4, that’s a big increase in GHG potential, we want to avoid that.
Moreover it shouldn’t matter the original carbon source - if we have the opportunity to capture some methane from concentrated point source like a landfill we should be jumping at it. One of the easiest marginal tons of CO2e saved
Carbon is of course a factor in the case of stubble burning, but short of that biomass is being pulled from the atmosphere?
"Soil organic matter significantly improves the soil's capacity to store and supply essential nutrients (such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium), and to retain toxic elements. It allows the soil to cope with changes in soil acidity, and helps soil minerals to decompose faster."
https://www.google.com/search?q=benefits+of+soil+organic+mat...
Regularly converting a bunch of atmospheric CO2 to methane is not good.
Over 100 years it’s 80x for years 0-19 years and 15x for years 20-99 which averages to 28x by weight. Largely because 1 ton of methane turns into almost 3 tons of CO2.
Except when you start with CO2 at 44.01 g/mol it turns into CH4 at 16.04 g/mol you only get 16.04/44.01 ~= 36.4% as much methane and thus 36.4% of that global warming.
Net result for years 0-19 it’s 29x as bad and years 20-99 it’s 5.5x as bad. And considering the relatively trivial amount of CO2 released as methane vs sequestered in landfills they are a massive reduction in climate change.
The amount of confusion with the multiple bins is surprising at first glance
What can you recycle? Who knows. Bottles, usually, but only if they're clear, green, or brown glass. And not if they're broken. Definitely no glass from mirrors. Also, probably not the bottle lids, or the the triggers from spray bottles. Aerosol cans? Sure. But not their caps. Aluminium foil, yes, but only if it's not got food contamination on it, so no. Same with aluminium baking tins and tin cans (actually steel!) from canned food. Can I recycle my pizza boxes in this council? Currently, yes, but only if they're not too greasy. What's too greasy? Still who knows. Coffee cups are recyclable in some councils, but not all, by the way. The lids are recyclable in basically all of them. As an aside, there are issues with recycling soft plastics, even if the plastic is actually recyclable, so be careful to make sure that even if it has the right symbol on it, it's not too bendy.
All of that, and ... well, it doesn't matter what I do, because my neighbour just yeets literally everything that smells like plastic or paper into their recycling bin, so my careful work is just commingled with garbage anyway.
This feels like an over-wrought analogy for a lot of things in my life, really.
And that's extra confusing because some of the bins use a wineglass with a broken rim as the symbol for glass, but the council flyer goes and states no broken glass.
This exists in some US cities, at least.
Green, Blue, and Black bins, respectively.
By comparison, the point of composting is to break down the organic waste where it can be reused as soil and fertilizer.
https://handbookgermany.de/en/waste-separation
https://thesmartlocal.jp/garbage-disposal-japan/
Edit: Downvote me all you want, it won’t change the fact that we’re consuming resources at a significantly faster pace than the planet can provide them and people having three or more kids are a huge part of the problem, especially in developed countries. Deal with it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy/Consequenc...
I vaguely remember reading about a planned project that would be able to call companies and countries out on their actual methane production, not just what they report
https://www.methanesat.org/