this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
18 points (95.0% liked)

Asklemmy

54191 readers
381 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I keep getting ads saying things like "landfills produce more methane pollutants than 56000 cars" or "tell Congress to fix this one methane leak." I also hear people bring up farming cows as a counter-arguement for any climate action (but not as a "let's fix this" type arguement sadly). So my thinking is why aren't people trying to harvest methane and use it for something? Is it inefficient? Are they stupid?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Thorry@feddit.org 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because methane is a byproduct of the petroleum industry, it's very cheap. They have so much gas, they torch of a whole lot of it all the time. Which is a good thing, because releasing it as CO2 is actually better than releasing it as methane, obviously releasing it at all is a really bad thing.

It being so cheap makes it really hard for alternative sources to be viable, since it would be more complex and thus more expensive. It is done, but mostly because of regulation, subsidies and as an environmental measure.

Methane does break down fairly fast (still takes years), we keep releasing so much of it, it does contribute a lot to climate change. We are adding more than gets broken down. And even after it breaks down, it's still contributing to the amount of CO2, so better but not good.

[โ€“] Pissed@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

90 years is quite a long time.