But it is... It is carbon that was trapped in grass being released as gasses. The carbon was in the environment i. The exact same way fossil fuels were.

We had cows eat grass, convert the solid, non-greenhouse carbons in that grass into methane, and we are then releasing that into the atmosphere as a gas.

This is not a direct co2 to methane to co2 process, you are ignoring where that carbon was in the first place. In plants. Just like fossil fuels... Or have we forgotten fossil fuels are mostly from plant matter?

It is absolutely more. It is taking solid carbons and releasing them as gasses producing more co2 in the atmosphere than there was before.

That methane would not have been produced without human intervention. That is my entire point.

That many cows exist because of humans.

That much manure is created because of humans.

That much methane is produced as a part of that cycle... Because of humans.

Just because it came from and would return naturally does not mean that we are not dramatically accellerating the process.

Granted coal pollutes more, but the equivalance is there when we are talking about the precipice that we are standing on with climate change. The emitted carbons are what I'm talking about.

I'm not going to pretend I have a solution to methane, but putting it in cars and turning it into more CO2doesn't scream "clean" or "solution" to me. It screams delay and marketing.

I said "as imperfect as you like" didn't i?

Those impacts are local, not global. It is a solution to global climate change, not local mudslides and other shit.

I agree that nothing is perfect. I disagree that this is a "solution." It is a bridge as others I agree with have said and it is not "clean."

It is absolutely not! It is a stopgap at best. It is kicking the can down the road. It is a delay, not a solution. A solution ends the problem. Removing combustion from the energy equation solves the global climate change problem. Not changing what we're combusting... Unless we can perfect hydrogen, but well... I think we'd sooner see nuclear/solar/wind EVs and energy focus as a solution to global climate change. Move away from throwing carbons into the air at all.

Solutions as imperfect as you'd like them, exist. This is not a "solution."

Because we are still producing the excess methane and then converting it into CO2. This is all still man made and it is all just slowing the process.

If this was using a natural methane vent? I'd absolutely hear the arguments of "well it was gonna be there anyway.

It isn't. It's from manure we produce from our livestock to feed peoppe and even then a ton of it gets thrown away or unused because it's a bad cut or x or y or z.

It isn't " clean" because it is still combusting something to produce CO2. The other greenhouse gas that, sure, might be "less bad" but is still melting ice caps and acidifying the oceans. As is the major problem with all of our excessive combustion.

I'm not even saying don't do it, but for heaven's sake, calling it "clean" is the same as calling coal "clean." You gotta jump through a few hoops to justify it.

Yes, but it isn't "clean" and that is my point. It is an alternate fuel and a stopgap. Claiming it as "clean" or a "solution" as it seems to be being touted is a lie. The whole company's name is a lie. It's a fine stop gap sure, but it is not "clean" and that is my entire point.

Kicking the can further down the road isn't a solution.

I never said that either, we are at a point where this is becoming binary. This is one issue of many and it's swiftly put itself in that corner. To think I think so generally when speaking on one issue is silly.

That's what they say in an article, but all any consumer will ever see is their name and their marketing claims.

Marketing can't just be written off an forgiven, it's the only "education" on the subject matter some people ever get. They're happy to tell a newsperson the truth because they know the average person rolling up and filling their tank didn't read it. They saw "BIOCLEAN!" and heard some marketer say "We're trapping methane and turning it into fuel, keeping the methane out of the atmosphere and helping to fight climate change!"

Then they go in thinking "wow, isn't this great. I'm doing my part!" All the whioe we ignore the CO2 emissions for another 20 years because it's "not as bad" and most people don't realize it's even producing CO2.

Then you have to tell people this beautiful clean coa- sorry, methane they've been burning is actually bad now and they need to stop. Now you're trying to wrest the wheel in a direction we could have been driving in 20 years ago, but someone's marketing team came up with a real good pitch and bent the truth just so.

It isn't marketing. It's lying.

If you have three different acids, all corrosive yet some are merely more acidic than others, would you say any of them are good to pour on your face?

In the same vein, I was saying all greenhouse gasses are bad and some are worse than others. None of them are "good" all of them are "bad" it is merely that some are worse than others.

Pushing off the due date and claiming this is "clean" is bad. Offer it, utilize it as a stopgap sure... It's foolish to call it "clean" or think it "better." It is merely buying time on the clock.

That i will agree with, I'm just absolutely livid that they have the gall to call it "clean" when it's been given the equivalant of spitting on an apple and rubbing it on your shirt.

I never said it wasn't a neat idea or that it didn't have its uses, but it isn't "clean" for heavens sake. That's just more misleading bs that people will eat up and ignore until "ohhh nooo, but they said it was cleeeaaaan" 80 years into the future.

My point was more that we make it feasible. It doesn't have to be all profit all the time when the planet is, in some places, literally on fire because of the changes being brought on.

Indeed it has its barriers and I never said it was a perfect solution either... But if we can find ways to build skyscrapers in weeks, we can find ways to do these things. The problem, as ever, is "profit."

Yet it is still exchanging a flamethrower for a match. Just because one takes longer to set a fire doesn't mean it won't start a fire.

It is not a solution, it is just more shoving the problem off into "the future" because its "less bad." Something for our children and their children to deal with just like the generations of Exxon did to us through lead and gasoline.

Well, if you plan to have humans to feed, turning the planet into a literal greenhouse - the entire reason they are called "greenhouse gasses" - isn't exactly beneficial to those humans. They don't do well in high heat, high CO2 environments.

CO2 traps heat. Less than methane, but for a longer period of time. If you wanna make a super carbonated environment indoors in a real glass greenhouse... By all means. Doing that to the planet is a very, very bad idea for humanity. For many reasons.

Unless you like the idea of acidic, overflowing seas and a return to the paleolithic environment.

I stated that rather simply in another comment, but the point of the matter is that we are at a point that we need to eliminate all greenhouse gasses.

Switching from a flamethrower to a match doesn't stop the old wood house from catching on fire.

On fire and slightly less on fire are both bad. Their framing means nothing.

It is to say they are both poison and we need be rid of them both. Use alcohol as the comparison then, the point stands. Sorry folks are upset we're at the stage where this doesn't matter. If this came about 20 to 30 years ago maybe, but now it is moot.

Indeed, it's a little out of realm for now... But should a breakthrough hit I'm immediately inboard. The most viable stopgap seems to be EV.

I'd love to just see a drop in EV engines. Maybe offer scrap discounts for trading the motor. I think a few are out there, but if it takes off... Hoo!

We need battery exchange stations and easily exchanged batteries at that. Why spend a year charging when you can have 100 in the back and hot-swap them for an exchange and charge a differential fee? If the battery is bad, maybe have a battery recycling fee. There are ways to do it that make sense in the interim!

Man. I'm pretty sure cyanide is worse as far as poisons go. If we can sip antifreeze instead that's at least a little better.

None are better than another, some are merely worse. It might take more antifreeze to kill you, but they'll both kill you.

Consider methane a nearly literal greenhouse as it rapidly traps heat and co2 a wool blanket. Methane traps a lot very quickly, and CO2 keeps it here.

They both need capture and scrubbing in some nature, not conversion.

This is just exchanging one greenhouse gas for another. Burning methane still produces carbon dioxide. That isn't "clean."

Neat concept, but we really need to lean away from any greenhouse gas emitting fuel. This is money, time, and effort that could have gone into something else. Too much combustion is the problem.