Several questions ask to contextualize this measurement.
Here's a highly-cited paper in Nature (including some of the researchers quoted in the OP) that describes how an earlier survey of California methane emissions went:
If I remember right, the state of CA asked for this survey. It was carried out by an instrument similar to that of the OP, but airborne, not on ISS as in OP.
(One effect of these regulations, that lay people may have noticed, is trying to get food waste out of the landfill stream, and into composting, so that it doesn't decay anaerobically and produce methane. In LA, for example, the LADWP is test-driving a program where food scraps - vegetables, but also meats and fats - are diverted into green bins.)
Strengthened regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure are part of this - I'm not saying the studies motivated these regulations, just that they are all part of policies heading in that direction.
The ISS measurements in OP have covered (and will continue to cover) a much broader area than the California airborne survey - but with less spatial resolution - so presumably a broad survey of mid-latitude super-emitters will be possible in the coming months.
> In LA, for example, the LADWP is test-driving a program where food scraps - vegetables, but also meats and fats - are diverted into green bins
Moved to SF from LA area. Sf does the green bins and it’s actually surprisingly nice to separate the compostable scraps out of the other trash. It keeps the trash bin much cleaner and much less stinky.
If I moved back to an area that didn’t require it, I’d still keep them separate and only re-combine at the curbside bin.
We have compostable bin pickup twice a week in my hometown in Italy, a ton of things are compostable with industrial composters these days which you could not easily compost at home, also thanks to regulations (e.g. shopping bags, tea bags, some food packaging etc), so the other bins stay pretty empty.
Important to note that, at least in my experience, most of the 'plastic bags' in Italy are the compostable kind. In the UK they're still in the minotrity (I've only seen our version of the Co-Op offer them, for instance).
You might wish to be wary about tea bags, mind - here in the UK our tea producers are still struggling to release bags free of thin heat-pressed polypropylene sealing strips... .
I live in the country and I throw whatever the hell I want in my compost and my garden loves it. Next time you get a hyper specific instructions page about what to compost and not, do what I do: chuck it in the compost with everything else organic! :)
Bottom feeder companies that will squeeze some money out of them before declaring bankruptcy. Because of inadequate bonding requirements taxpayers will wind up footing the bill for cleanup.
Its deja vu all over again with the coal industry.
One of the companies they sell them to is DEC, which I invest in. These old wells are still profitable but only for organizations with lower cost structures that specialize in handling these sorts of end-of-life regulations and maintenances. State governments subsidize them to maintain the wells long into the future.
> That's adorable. Meanwhile, the entire article circle is melting and fermenting.
yeah this guy is right. if we can’t fix it in a single swift stroke, it can’t be fixed. (i just gave myself a headache from rolling my eyes so hard.)
think of it differently, at least for a few seconds. what is significant change if not lots of small changes measured cumulatively? lots of individual people wanting gas for their cars contributed to oil companies (and others) polluting for profit; why can’t individual changes also contribute to a solution?
Also, doing a small thing personally can increase your commitment to the issue.
If you find yourself doing something you think people collectively shouldn't do, you work to excuse yourself. This is classic cognitive dissonance. It is unpleasant and makes you angry and cynical. If you find yourself doing the right thing in your own eyes, you improve your opinion of yourself and you may want more.
And the people who are still doing nothing and dealing with cognitive dissonance accuse you of virtue signaling, as though this, whether or not it is true, is a greater sin than whatever they remain defensive about.
It's part of a narrative to blame consumers for causing climate change, meanwhile industry pollutes far more. The pollution reduction per unit effort is much higher if you focus on heavy industry.
> It's part of a narrative to blame consumers for causing climate change, meanwhile industry pollutes far more.
True, but "ignore personal action and rail at industry" is part of another narrative that is probably still less effective at changing industry.
If you find a polity where consumers are not taking individual action to address climate change, you will find it is not applying more pressure on industry or politicians than a polity where consumers are taking individual action. If you attack the individuals who are taking action, you are attacking the political base that would support addressing climate change. Convincing them that their efforts are pointless, silly, and perhaps just vanity or arrogance, does not empower them. Industry is not quaking in its boots at the prospect that people will accuse all the composters and recyclers of virtue signaling and hypocrisy.
I agree with you but it shouldn't be overlooked that industry makes shortcuts which are disastrous for the environment to pad their margins very slightly so the executives can get a bonus.
The crux of the problem is the costs we allow to be externalized and the arduous legal process involved in getting a small fraction of the real damages paid. You shouldn't need a lawsuit to make a company pay for every penny of damage they did.
Significant change is global infrastructure level changes, like no longer needing to commute to work. Changes that individuals really can’t control. Your point is bad because most people and systems will not act until they feel the negative effects, so a few million people carefully composting might allow them to keep behaving irresponsibly for a few days.
Look at the relationship between the size of cars being sold and gas prices. Any slack your individual efforts introduce into the system will get chewed up by someone else.
Here's a highly-cited paper in Nature (including some of the researchers quoted in the OP) that describes how an earlier survey of California methane emissions went:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3
If I remember right, the state of CA asked for this survey. It was carried out by an instrument similar to that of the OP, but airborne, not on ISS as in OP.
California has standards for methane emissions (e.g., https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/oil-and-gas-met...) that are now covering landfills and oil and gas infrastructure, and dairies -- three of the largest categories of large emitters.
(One effect of these regulations, that lay people may have noticed, is trying to get food waste out of the landfill stream, and into composting, so that it doesn't decay anaerobically and produce methane. In LA, for example, the LADWP is test-driving a program where food scraps - vegetables, but also meats and fats - are diverted into green bins.)
Strengthened regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure are part of this - I'm not saying the studies motivated these regulations, just that they are all part of policies heading in that direction.
It is believed that large oil companies are aggressively selling off oil pumps/fields to get out from under this responsibility. (https://www.propublica.org/article/california-oil-wells-shel...)
The ISS measurements in OP have covered (and will continue to cover) a much broader area than the California airborne survey - but with less spatial resolution - so presumably a broad survey of mid-latitude super-emitters will be possible in the coming months.