Trump doesn't care about the environment

[stickerpatch59]

Is there any real data that increase methane is harmful?

no, but it's STINKY; so there.

[muzzlebrake]

Methane been seeping out of the earth for billions of years. Pretty sure TF has been leaking more than his share too.

[mwk128]

Is there any real data that increase methane is harmful?

Yes.

http://https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/methane/

[muzzlebrake]

But but but they never take into account the 60 million Buffalo that once roamed north America. I guess these buffalo didn't fart. Nor did all them pachyderms that died off or the millions of whales that were killed off. Now them whale farts are really stinky especially the ones that don't leave the bar until closing time. Maybe it's time to outlaw beer and burritos. I'm quite sure my dogs are responsible for most of this methane mess. They danged near kilt me again last night.

[camoclad]

Yes.

http://https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/methane/

Nope

Wetlands are the largest source of natural methane on the earth. Im assuming you relize most life revolves around clean water and air, wetlands. Wetlands protect us from floods and storm surges (see huricane Katrina and Sandy). And, with all the good things wetlands bring, we are bulldozing and filling them at a alarming rate. Some say we have less than %50 of what we had in 1900... sounds right anyways.

This is why I'm a conservationist and not an environmentalist. Reality versus, at best, theory. The answer to your question is absolutely, yes. We need more methane... from increased wetlands, for clean, healthy, happy lives

[Artos]

Isn't methane one of the desired products that these evil gas compression facilities produce / store / transport / sell along with other NG bi-products be it liquids or gas forms...here I was thinking they were spending money to turn natural gas for profit in various forms??

Shoulda realized Trump needs the methane for his chem trail hook up to spew out of Air Force 1 due to his pure hatred of the environment...you can learn just about anything on this forum.

Well, at least we're saving the cows now...was a little worried about those gassy methane producers being a casualty of war on this new green deal, but Trump really needs them for his dirty air agenda & will still have his McDonalds fix. One less thing for him to worry about & can scratch the increased methane into the environment goal off the list.

[camoclad]

Also, environmentalist know that methane come from the environment. There's a push on their behalf to remove the methane producing natural resources (the earth) to save the earth.... see the craziness of environmentalism?

So, in honor of defeating the environmentalist, let's all go buy a duck stamp and see how much methane we can actually produce. Hooray!!!

[mwk128]

Nope

Wetlands are the largest source of natural methane on the earth. Im assuming you relize most life revolves around clean water and air, wetlands. Wetlands protect us from floods and storm surges (see huricane Katrina and Sandy). And, with all the good things wetlands bring, we are bulldozing and filling them at a alarming rate. Some say we have less than %50 of what we had in 1900... sounds right anyways.

This is why I'm a conservationist and not an environmentalist. Reality versus, at best, theory. The answer to your question is absolutely, yes. We need more methane... from increased wetlands, for clean, healthy, happy lives

Can you cite a source for your statement? The EPA states that 50%-65% of globally produced methane comes from human activities. And of that percentage 31% comes from fossil fuel (so conservatively 15% of the total). Methane is a greenhouse gas that has something like 30 times the warming potential of co2. So even if you can reduce the human production by something like 5% with workable regulations wouldn’t that be beneficial to reduce the onset and effect of global warming. Are you not concerned about protecting the planet for future generations?

http://https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissi...-gases#methane

[camoclad]

Can you cite a source for your statement? The EPA states that 50%-65% of globally produced methane comes from human activities. And of that percentage 31% comes from fossil fuel (so conservatively 15% of the total). Methane is a greenhouse gas that has something like 30 times the warming potential of co2. So even if you can reduce the human production by something like 5% with workable regulations wouldn’t that be beneficial to reduce the onset and effect of global warming. Are you not concerned about protecting the planet for future generations?

http://https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissi...-gases#methane

I'm not going to attempt to argue your numbers. They could be right, I honestly don't know. It's simply a difference in world views. I'm admittedly simple minded and I believe what I come to experience and know.

Yes a reduction in "man made" methane would be good but we can't even agree on what "man made" is. If I restore a drained wetland and it produces methane is that "man made"?

I see the world through a conservation view based on biblical truths (i.e. I believe God actually created the environment and gave man some simple tools and knowledge to manage it). Reduction of Methane and all green gasses will come with the advent of new technology and necessity. In the mean time, I promise if we turn our thoughts and concerns to the simplicity of clean water and air and protection of critical ecosystems the climate will fix itself, if there's anything to be fixed. And more resources to hunt and stick with bow and arrow, we all win. Huzzah friends!!!

[flywise]

Can you cite a source for your statement? The EPA states that 50%-65% of globally produced methane comes from human activities. And of that percentage 31% comes from fossil fuel (so conservatively 15% of the total). Methane is a greenhouse gas that has something like 30 times the warming potential of co2. So even if you can reduce the human production by something like 5% with workable regulations wouldn’t that be beneficial to reduce the onset and effect of global warming. Are you not concerned about protecting the planet for future generations?

http://https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissi...-gases#methane

Man made climate change / warming is a scam to steal your money.
There is absolutly NO science to back up the claims the climate is changing by way of any human activity.

[RiverRat1]

If a mega corporation is saying anything then one things for sure....It somehow, someway equates to them making more money. Period

It takes a real special person to think BP cares about the environment over profits LOL

[gonehuntin68]

Also, environmentalist know that methane come from the environment. There's a push on their behalf to remove the methane producing natural resources (the earth) to save the earth.... see the craziness of environmentalism?

So, in honor of defeating the environmentalist, let's all go buy a duck stamp and see how much methane we can actually produce. Hooray!!!

Can you cite a source for your statement? The EPA states that 50%-65% of globally produced methane comes from human activities. And of that percentage 31% comes from fossil fuel (so conservatively 15% of the total). Methane is a greenhouse gas that has something like 30 times the warming potential of co2. So even if you can reduce the human production by something like 5% with workable regulations wouldn’t that be beneficial to reduce the onset and effect of global warming. Are you not concerned about protecting the planet for future generations?

http://https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissi...-gases#methane

Well if I go by the two posts above, the world is now producing about the same amount of methane it was in the 1800's. About 50% less now due to the loss of wetlands but about 50% more now due to humans.

[camoclad]

Well if I go by the two posts above, the world is now producing about the same amount of methane it was in the 1800's. About 50% less now due to the loss of wetlands but about 50% more now due to humans.

Maybe. I dont know you but believe your math and assumptions are just as likely as accurate as a "degreed environmental scientist". I dont think its a complicated issue and the solutions are the same as they have always been, common sense conservation at a 4th grade level.

[muzzlebrake]

I think we should all get carbon credits for every piece of farting beef we eat or every beef you send to the slaughter house. We could all be rich in no time just like Al Gore. Of course we would all have to hold our own farts in until they are absorbed.

[RiverRat1]

I think we should all get carbon credits for every piece of farting beef we eat or every beef you send to the slaughter house. We could all be rich in no time just like Al Gore. Of course we would all have to hold our own farts in until they are absorbed.

Do you lose credits every time you eat at Taco Bell?