Yes, I know it’s not technically just methane, but methane is its primary constituent.

“Fossil gas” is also probably a suitable term, but I like “fossil methane” because it gets that spooky chemical name benefit.

  • Yucky_Dimension@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    Feel free to correct me, but this sounds incredibly ill-informed. Yes, methane itself is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, far more potent than CO2. But there are several types of “natural” gas. You are talking about fossil fuels, the type of methane either trapped underground or beneath the arctic perma frost. Methane is created by decomposing organic matter though. Livestock is one of the biggest producers of natural gas as far as I know. If released into the atmosphere, methane would be devastating, as it takes about ten years for it to degrade into CO2 first. I don’t know the impact of using “natural” gas compared to other kinds of fossil fuels. Burning it definitely seems like the lesser of two evils though. A quick Google search says that “emissions per unit of energy produced from gas are around 40% lower than coal and around 20% lower than oil.” While this is far from perfect, putting it on the same level seems either ignorant or disingenuous.

    TLDR: Methane doesn’t necessarily mean fossil fuels. Burning methane and using it as an energy source is less bad than releasing it directly into the atmosphere.

    Again, if there’s anyone with actual knowledge on the subject, please correct me.