If the permafrost's going to melt anyway...

[AndySir]

...and cause a runaway greenhouse effect, why not just burn the methane now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27021610

I'm not easily shocked these days, but seeing this on the BBC left me staring dumbly at the screen like somebody had suggested banging a couple of bits of uranium together to keep warm. Genuinely surprised to see there's even a research budget for this.

[Tarrel]

I saw this and had the same reaction.

Quote:

"Methane hydrate makes perfect sense for Japan and could be a game changer," says Laszlo Varro of the International Energy Agency (IEA).

and:

"If all the methane gets out, we're looking at a Mad Max movie," says Mr Varro.

"Even using conservative estimates of methane [deposits], this could make all the CO2 from fossil fuels look like a joke.

"How long can the gradual warming go on before the methane gets out? Nobody knows, but the longer it goes on, the closer we get to playing Russian roulette."

Capturing the methane and burning it suddenly looks like rather a good idea. Maybe this particular hydrocarbon addiction could prove beneficial for us all.

[Little John]

we are soooooo f***ed


and we are going to take the rest of life down to hell with us

[kenneal - lagger]

Economic disaster is the only thing which will save some of the human race. If we are able to carry on as we are now there will be a methane burp long before we can use a significant amount of the hydrates. TPTB will carry on until we all drop from heat exhaustion or drown in floods!!

[emordnilap]

To quote Ugo Bardi:

...climate science is not just about modern global warming. It is the true scientific revolution of the 21st century. It is nothing less than a radical change of paradigm about everything that takes place on our planet; comparable to the Copernican revolution of centuries ago.

One of a few who've truly internalised the climate's fundamental role in shaping the world and its inhabitants. He goes on:

Climate science gives us a complete picture of how the Earth system has gradually evolved and changed, maintaining conditions favorable for organic life despite the gradual increase of the solar irradiation over the past four billion years. It is a delicate balance that depends on many factors, including the burial of large amounts of carbon which previously were part of the biosphere and that, over the ages, have become what we call "fossil fuels". Extracting and burning fossil fuels means tampering with the very mechanisms that keep us alive. Climate science is fascinating, even beautiful, but it is the kind of beauty that can kill.

The message cannot be clearer. It's 'hidden in plain sight'.

[emordnilap]

At a meeting for ExxonMobil shareholders in Dallas, CEO Rex Tillerson told those assembled that an economy that runs on oil is here to stay, and cutting carbon emissions would do no good.

He asked, “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?”

[Little John]

At a meeting for ExxonMobil shareholders in Dallas, CEO Rex Tillerson told those assembled that an economy that runs on oil is here to stay, and cutting carbon emissions would do no good.

He asked, “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?”

oh jesus wept

[kenneal - lagger]

If he's the CEO what is the intellectual capacity of the rest of the employees like? Ralph/RGR?

[Tarrel]

If he's the CEO what is the intellectual capacity of the rest of the employees like? Ralph/RGR?

Probably higher in many cases. Just because he's the CEO, doesn't mean he's more intelligent than his staff!

[emordnilap]

I thought you'd like that one, the one from Rex/Ralph/RGR.

[UndercoverElephant]

...and cause a runaway greenhouse effect, why not just burn the methane now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27021610

I'm not easily shocked these days, but seeing this on the BBC left me staring dumbly at the screen like somebody had suggested banging a couple of bits of uranium together to keep warm.

Yes, I was also astonished at the lack of awareness of how absurd the claims in this article were. "The methane is going to burp anyway, so we might as well burn it even though it amounts to more carbon than all of the conventional oil, gas and coal ever burned."

Fortunately we aren't going to get the chance to do that much damage, due to all the other damage we're already causing.

[raspberry-blower]

...and cause a runaway greenhouse effect, why not just burn the methane now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27021610

I'm not easily shocked these days, but seeing this on the BBC left me staring dumbly at the screen like somebody had suggested banging a couple of bits of uranium together to keep warm.

Yes, I was also astonished at the lack of awareness of how absurd the claims in this article were. "The methane is going to burp anyway, so we might as well burn it even though it amounts to more carbon than all of the conventional oil, gas and coal ever burned."

Fortunately we aren't going to get the chance to do that much damage, due to all the other damage we're already causing.

The lack of critical thinking is not the only thing that is insidious of the BBC's reporting - it is also the language they are using.
For example:

The side-effects, however, are potentially devastating; burning fossil fuels emits the CO2 linked to global warming.

No. it is not potentially devastating - IT IS DEVASTATING!

The beeb has become a voice piece for the Corporate state chanting on for business as usual.

[emordnilap]

Methane Hydrates - Extended Interview Extracts With Natalia Shakhova

Interesting.

Try to ignore the music at the beginning. Slightly inappropriate.

"We do not like what we see there".