Satellite data finds landfills are methane 'super emitters'

[Gyfts]

Seeing as how many are overzealous in their climate change crusade. Enough so to negatively stigmatize PoW and the crypto mining industry. Perhaps they can be appeased by a stronger effort towards a carbon neutral society.

If your source is correct and that 25% of global warming is caused by methane (these estimations are often wrong to begin with so I take the estimation at face value), then whatever emissions produced from landfills are merely noise in system and of little importance. Humans have to produce pollution, it's a product of existing. The climate change alarmist suggest that crypto mining doesn't produce anything tangible and subsequently becomes an easy target opposed to something like landfills, a necessity. I don't suppose even the most radical climate change activist would support eliminating landfills allowing waste to pile up in local environments.

I don't take these people very seriously, anyways. We would be much better off not trying to aim for a carbon free society and use energy sources until depletion. Then switch to nuclear energy. Carbon based fuel will last at least 5 more decades.

[1714972005]

1714972005

[1714972005]

1714972005

[Darker45]

I am pretty sure the reason why they apply a certain membrane between the layers of land fill waste is to contain that methane release.

They dump the garbage and after a few weeks they cover it up so it doesn’t produce methane. They add a thick layer and they pile more garbage on top of that and eventually also cover it up. The bigger issue with landfill is the toxic liquids that are released and harder to control.

Well, that's the design at least. These landfills are supposed to be sanitary landfills. And before they're approved, they have to be properly designed in such a way that it is not posing any serious danger to the surrounding communities and beyond. For sure, these landfills secured all the necessary permits and clearances. Alas, satellite data disprove everything. Sanitary landfills are anything but sanitary.  

Probably one reason why the garbage can't be covered properly is that there are actually significant economic activities within sanitary landfills.

well its the lack of economics,, not profitable to do anything more than dump it.

Perhaps lack of economics from one perspective, but vibrant with economics from another. While others are throwing away their garbage because they amount to nothing anymore, others are making a living out of it.

but isnt it funny for a century it was dumped, and the very second someone mentions biogas.. suddenly they put a roof over it, collect the gas and refuse to give it away unless someone pays them

Well, at the very least, there are costs involved in developing it. Whoever develops it will have to be paid. Apart from that, there will also be operational costs. They will have to be paid for these as well. And a certain amount of revenue will also be needed for further development or possible extension or whatever.

[fiulpro]

Now let's talk about something, even though you guys are right, we do know that most rich countries " dump " their waste in the developing or under developed countries, which means that ! The countries getting the dump filled would actually be blamed as the biggest emitter of methane etc.
Even though this would be actually ignored and people would blame poor countries and make list about the biggest emitter of the green house gases like ' methane ' etc. But they would generally ignore this fact as well, so we need to take everything into consideration before we can actually make a usual statment regarding such countries.

[franky1]

Even though this would be actually ignored and people would blame poor countries and make list about the biggest emitter of the green house gases like ' methane ' etc. But they would generally ignore this fact as well, so we need to take everything into consideration before we can actually make a usual statment regarding such countries.

well its all about numbers
take https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/

1    China                10,432,751,400    
2    United States     5,011,686,600

everyone shouts out that china is bad..
yet. you got to put numbers in prospective

US has 330m population and china has 4-5x population(1400m)

if the US has 15.52 per person..
then china has 7.38 per person..

which in reality is each person in china is twice as good at conserving/preventing co2 as america.

that being said .based on the top 10 countries of population... india has a 1.91 per person pakistan, nigeria, bangladesh are under 1 per person

[dothebeats]

So does this mean that we should ditch the landfills then? There aren't any better alternatives to landfills AFAIK, and how would Man throw his waste anyway without landfills? We have to admit that the methane produced in landfills is somewhat 'necessary' and that there isn't anything we can do about it just yet until we find out how to possibly covert that methane into something useful. Until then, that methane isn't going anywhere unfortunately.

[Hydrogen]

well its all about numbers
take https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/

1    China                10,432,751,400    
2    United States     5,011,686,600

everyone shouts out that china is bad..
yet. you got to put numbers in prospective

A large chunk of american carbon and greenhouse gas emissions are US military.

Report: The U.S. Military Emits More CO2 Than Many Industrialized Nations

A new report from Brown University has estimated that since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the U.S. military has emitted 1,212 million metric tons of greenhouse gases. In 2017 alone, CO2 emissions added up to 59 million tons - more than many industrialized nations including Sweden and Switzerland.

BP's Statistical Review of World Energy records carbon dioxide emissions in different countries and in 2017, total estimated CO2 emissions in Sweden came to 48 million tons by comparison. The U.S. military also produced more greenhouse gases than Morocco, Peru, Hungary, Finland, New Zealand and Norway. According to the research from Brown University, the Pentagon would be the world's 55th largest CO2 emitter if it was a country.

War and preparation for it are fossil fuel intensive activities and along with being the single largest consumer of energy in the U.S., the Department of Defense is the world's single largest institutional consumer of petroleum. 70% of all energy gets consumed by moving and utilizing troops and equipment around the world, involving the burning of vast quantities of jet fuel and diesel. Military equipment is not known for its fuel efficiency and it is estimated that the country's remaining fleet of 60,000 humvees only gets four to eight miles per gallon of diesel. Military real estate also leaves a considerable carbon footprint and in FY2017, the Department of Defense spent $3.5 billion heating, cooling and providing electricity to 560,000 buildings at 500 installations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/

I wonder which US sectors have the largest CO2 emissions, if a breakdown was made.

There is certainly no push to refit M-1 Abrams tanks with diesel engines that offer better fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Its typical for US military vehicles to have the lowest range and worst fuel economy of any vehicle in their class. One element I've always disliked about its composition. Not only does it translate to greater carbon emissions but is also a disadvantage in eras like the present where fuel becomes a scarce commodity.

[kryptqnick]

Unlike some people in this thread, I do believe that Climate Change should be taken seriously because there is a scientific consensus on the matter, and whatever sufferings we currently have in the world, there will be more if we keep ignoring this global challenge. So emissions shouldn't be disregarded, but do we really need space solutions for it? I recently moved to a country where recycling food waste is a norm, something people are expected to do and mostly do. I haven't done organic recycling before, but it took me a whopping couple of days to figure it out and get adjusted. If there's appropriate infrastructure that takes care of organic waste, it's really not a hard thing to do. Same goes for basic recycling of paper, glass, plastic bottles.

[el kaka22]

We seriously need to find ways to destroy landfills without hurting the world one way or another. I mean look at all the plastic islands called great pacific garbage patch and all that, plus the landfills in every nation. We have waste and that's fine, nobody says we shouldn't have it because it is unrealistic to expect it to be like that.

But, we need to at least find a better way to get rid of it. I do not know how that could be done, maybe you could bury it? Maybe you could send it to space all I care, but we need to find a method for it. No matter how many times climate change deniers cry no foul is going on, we have a big environmental crisis in our hands and we need to do something right now, not later when it is too late.

[Ultegra134]

I am pretty sure the reason why they apply a certain membrane between the layers of land fill waste is to contain that methane release.

They dump the garbage and after a few weeks they cover it up so it doesn’t produce methane. They add a thick layer and they pile more garbage on top of that and eventually also cover it up. The bigger issue with landfill is the toxic liquids that are released and harder to control.

Even if that's the case, do you believe that such measure is enough in order to prevent pollution? In my opinion, underground water pollution is just as important, and is certainly occurring to an extent, despite what officials claim. That water is finding its way to our seas and beaches, affecting humans and animals altogether.

I find it outstanding that we still haven't figured out a reasonable way to deal with our waste than simply dumping or shipping it somewhere we can't see it. If I remember correctly, Singapore has one of the most advanced waste management facilities by burning waste (which is slightly controversial if you ask me), filtering the generated fumes and use it for power.

[tbterryboy]

We seriously need to find ways to destroy landfills without hurting the world one way or another. I mean look at all the plastic islands called great pacific garbage patch and all that, plus the landfills in every nation. We have waste and that's fine, nobody says we shouldn't have it because it is unrealistic to expect it to be like that.

But, we need to at least find a better way to get rid of it. I do not know how that could be done, maybe you could bury it? Maybe you could send it to space all I care, but we need to find a method for it. No matter how many times climate change deniers cry no foul is going on, we have a big environmental crisis in our hands and we need to do something right now, not later when it is too late.

It is said that landfill produces methane which can be used to produce electricity so why will you destroy them? And if you destroy them like burning them, this will cause an air pollution which is harmful if inhaled by a human or harmful to the ozone layer it rises above though burying it in the ground can be a better idea.

Sending them into space seems crazy. That will be very hassle plus we are also polluting other planets which is not good, only to make our planet more cleaner. There is still a solution to prevent a landfill and that is by recycling especially those items who are non degradable. Wastes are normal but it would be better to segregate them properly and don't just throw them away somewhere else.

[Smartvirus]

Somehow in all these emissions and green house gases, bitcoin is the only threat to the environment as per energy consumption hough mining and emissions from combustion or fossil fuels, how ironical the world thinks.

1    China                10,432,751,400    
2    United States     5,011,686,600

everyone shouts out that china is bad..
yet. you got to put numbers in prospective

US has 330m population and china has 4-5x population(1400m)

if the US has 15.52 per person..
then china has 7.38 per person..

which in reality is each person in china is twice as good at conserving/preventing co2 as america.

that being said .based on the top 10 countries of population... india has a 1.91 per person pakistan, nigeria, bangladesh are under 1 per person

And there goes my country. Somehow, we always rank up in statistics like these. Good thing we also show up when It comes to population with crypto adoption evn as it isn't very much welcomed by the government of my nation.

Considering the calculations above at Franky1, other parameters could be at play as well. Like how the designs are made and managed.

[STT]

landfills is somewhat 'necessary' and that there isn't anything we can do

Point is we can do something and refine the rubbish better.  Methane can be captured and used for energy, presently we release it and dont bother with the process of intelligent use of rubbish.  Its obviously easier to bury it and hope it goes away but we've known for many decades gas will appear with waste and it can be reused for power etc.        The extra info now is this gas is especially destructive when it reaches the upper atmosphere.