‘Mind-boggling’ methane emissions from Turkmenistan revealed(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
‘Mind-boggling’ methane emissions from Turkmenistan revealed
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/09/mind-boggling-methane-emissions-from-turkmenistan-revealed
13 comments
There’s an extensive push to get an international legal basis on this. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecocide .
If that means the Global South invading countries like the US or the UK in order to stop big ecociders like Shell, Exxon, Chevron or P&G, then I’m all for it.
Unfortunately we all know that those are not the intended targets of that legislation.
Unfortunately we all know that those are not the intended targets of that legislation.
Invading other countries is against international law, and is exactly what these regulations aim to prevent.
> Invading other countries is against international law
This is a popular assumption, but it is not true. At least, definitely not now:
US and Europe invading multiple countries and international community being chill about it had set a strong enough precedent.
C'mon, NATO had recently updated its doctrines to allow it warfare over climate - we have all the preconditions for fun stuff.
This is a popular assumption, but it is not true. At least, definitely not now:
US and Europe invading multiple countries and international community being chill about it had set a strong enough precedent.
C'mon, NATO had recently updated its doctrines to allow it warfare over climate - we have all the preconditions for fun stuff.
So, then, how are they going to stop those supposed ecocides? Meaning, how are they going to enforce those regulations on countries that are not following them?
There are enforcement methods that don't involve invasions
Such as?
More to the point, and putting ecocide and genocide in a similar ballpark, doesn’t anyone remember Rwanda anymore? Or Srebrenica? (this latter labeled technically as a massacre). Does anyone believe that those atrocities could have been stopped by “harsh words” alone? Or by economic sanctions? They weren’t.
Enforcement in this case means imposition of force, which in an inter-state situation means invasion or, at the very least, a military attack (see Kosovo in ‘99, technically not an invasion).
More to the point, and putting ecocide and genocide in a similar ballpark, doesn’t anyone remember Rwanda anymore? Or Srebrenica? (this latter labeled technically as a massacre). Does anyone believe that those atrocities could have been stopped by “harsh words” alone? Or by economic sanctions? They weren’t.
Enforcement in this case means imposition of force, which in an inter-state situation means invasion or, at the very least, a military attack (see Kosovo in ‘99, technically not an invasion).
I didn't count UN sanctioned peacekeeping as "invasion", but I can see how this could be seen as a purely semantic distinction.
I personally think it should be one instrument on the table as a matter of last resort, mainly for the purpose of deterrence.
I personally think it should be one instrument on the table as a matter of last resort, mainly for the purpose of deterrence.
Maybe more carrot than stick makes sense here as law enforcement doesn't really work for an authoritarian state. If there was enough financial incentive to lower emissions and keep them lower, I'm sure the Turkmenistan government would. Unfortunately (according to TFA) they are more allied to Russia and China which take a hands-off approach at best.
> Unfortunately (according to TFA) they are more allied to Russia and China which take a hands-off approach at best.
I get what you're saying here, something like, "we couldn't change it if we tried" but we wouldn't even if we could. We're fighting a proxy war with Russia right now over access to fossil fuel right now. Releasing tons and tons of CO2 for the right to release more CO2 in the future.
I get what you're saying here, something like, "we couldn't change it if we tried" but we wouldn't even if we could. We're fighting a proxy war with Russia right now over access to fossil fuel right now. Releasing tons and tons of CO2 for the right to release more CO2 in the future.
From a purely Russian-centric point of view, is global warming even a bad thing?
Russia has huge stretches of land that are mostly useless for farming because of the cold. Not to mention the Arctic region, which they could traverse by ship if most of the ice would be molten.
I almost mentioned that. Russia are possibly worse than ‘hands off’ when it comes to encouraging global warming
Edit: probably changed to possibly. Downvoted immediately because who knows?
Edit: probably changed to possibly. Downvoted immediately because who knows?
As I understand it that land won't become arable.
What’s your understanding based on?
https://www.climatechangepost.com/russia/agriculture-and-hor...
Sounds complex. There are open questions as to whether those regions that open up for farming would have the soil to support it. And whether reduction in rainfall elsewhere in Russia would cancel out the gains. They have already benefited from current warming.
Sounds complex. There are open questions as to whether those regions that open up for farming would have the soil to support it. And whether reduction in rainfall elsewhere in Russia would cancel out the gains. They have already benefited from current warming.
> They have already benefited from current warming.
I assure you, no one had noticed anything substantial.
I assure you, no one had noticed anything substantial.
> I get what you're saying here, something like, "we couldn't change it if we tried"
Not exactly. “We just need to offer a bigger carrot than Russia does”
Not exactly. “We just need to offer a bigger carrot than Russia does”
Nope. At first, you gotta fix that genocidal warmongering colonists reputation.
You don't assume that the relationships between the West and the Global South is a clean slate, right?
EDIT: And here come the downvotes from the bubble-people. Does the fact that Africa and the Middle East distrust the West surprise anyone, really? Can I maybe refer anyone to President Macron's recent struggles with Africa, or the fact that people in the Middle East aren't really thankful for dronestike politics?
You don't assume that the relationships between the West and the Global South is a clean slate, right?
EDIT: And here come the downvotes from the bubble-people. Does the fact that Africa and the Middle East distrust the West surprise anyone, really? Can I maybe refer anyone to President Macron's recent struggles with Africa, or the fact that people in the Middle East aren't really thankful for dronestike politics?
I didn't downvote, but I think a financial incentive would outweigh any moral outrage from Turkmenistan's ruling members. Russia is certainly willing to engage in proxy wars as much as western nations. China seems to be building up military power, (still a fraction of the US) but doesn't seem to be so interested in inciting conflict (yet).
I agree that western nations could take a page out of China's book and look to having more of a presence in developing and underdeveloped nations, including financing and building infrastructure, but hopefully without seeking leverage (e.g., Sri Lanka.. though the incompetent government only has themselves to blame).
I agree that western nations could take a page out of China's book and look to having more of a presence in developing and underdeveloped nations, including financing and building infrastructure, but hopefully without seeking leverage (e.g., Sri Lanka.. though the incompetent government only has themselves to blame).
Specifically Turkmenistan - sure, extremely likely. Turkmenistan is actually relatively west-friendly.
I wonder which country has the most emissions?
( China followed by US, and India ).
If you adjust by per capita - then all the energy producing countries are top - but then they are emitting for other people - Turkmenistan isn't producing all that energy for domestic consumption.
Easy to point fingers.
It's the consumers, not the producers per se that are the problem.
( China followed by US, and India ).
If you adjust by per capita - then all the energy producing countries are top - but then they are emitting for other people - Turkmenistan isn't producing all that energy for domestic consumption.
Easy to point fingers.
It's the consumers, not the producers per se that are the problem.
> Turkmenistan isn't producing all that energy for domestic consumption
> It's the consumers, not the producers per se that are the problem.
Irrespective of which party is the proximate cause of energy extraction in Turkmenistan, the large volume leakage of methane according to the article is not an inevitable byproduct of oil drilling. What’s more, the incremental costs of controlling methane emissions are tiny. And finally, consumers couldn’t go re-light methane flares at the drill sites even if they wanted to.
Irrespective of which party is the proximate cause of energy extraction in Turkmenistan, the large volume leakage of methane according to the article is not an inevitable byproduct of oil drilling. What’s more, the incremental costs of controlling methane emissions are tiny. And finally, consumers couldn’t go re-light methane flares at the drill sites even if they wanted to.
In other words, Turkmen Oil is fucking up and not doing basic methane leak management.
All of the discussions around who is a larger consumer are pointless; the point is that they could be doing more, and at a very small cost to them directly.
All of the discussions around who is a larger consumer are pointless; the point is that they could be doing more, and at a very small cost to them directly.
>If you adjust by per capita - then all the energy producing countries are top
If you use consumption based accounting, Luxembourg comes out number 1, apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
If you use consumption based accounting, Luxembourg comes out number 1, apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Our World in Data have an interactive map of it
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-emissions
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-emissions
Makes me wonder if we should one day have, alongside the crime against humanity, the crime against nature itself.
It's not necessarily different.
It's not necessarily different.
It is, because the latter is worse.
Being a major cause of climate change does not only affect humanity, but future generations and all life on Earth as well. It is an order of magnitude worse than genocide.
When a single entity is responsible for it, because of negligence or malice, the punishment should be more draconian than if it "only" caused harm to humanity.
Being a major cause of climate change does not only affect humanity, but future generations and all life on Earth as well. It is an order of magnitude worse than genocide.
When a single entity is responsible for it, because of negligence or malice, the punishment should be more draconian than if it "only" caused harm to humanity.
I live in the US, where we don't recognize any of that.
bregma(2)
How much of those emissions come from the Darvaza gas crater?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater
Probably none because the problem here is unburnt methane.
Why doesn't the plume sometimes ignite? I know methane is lighter than air so it would rise straight up, subject to winds. Seems like an electrostatic spark from say dust in the air would happen once in a while and ignite the plume. Or some kid launching a bottle rocket on a day with sideways winds. Maybe the gas concentration quickly becomes too low to ignite?
No one here talking about the US being right behind, despite being an alleged democracy, with regulatory frameworks in place (supposedly), orders of magnitude more money invested in fossil fuel extraction, a much larger population, free press, etc. ?
There's plenty of outrage to go around.
If we survive, there'll be plenty of time to assign blame.
But right now, any and all methane emissions must be stopped, as best able.
If we survive, there'll be plenty of time to assign blame.
But right now, any and all methane emissions must be stopped, as best able.
I'm not trying to assign blame (if anything, all other top comments do, one of them is talking about putting Turkmen on trial for crimes against humanity). I'm looking at the emissions and see Turkmenistan and the US are clear leaders on the methane leaks problem. And this place is full of US readers, therefore I believe it's worth discussing.
Any and all methane emissions must be stopped, including in the US, where all US citizens reading me should use their democratic power, write to their representants by e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever to try and change the situation. Turkmenistan is a poor country with rampant corruption and therefore it's harder to hold it to the same standards as a developed one.
Any and all methane emissions must be stopped, including in the US, where all US citizens reading me should use their democratic power, write to their representants by e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever to try and change the situation. Turkmenistan is a poor country with rampant corruption and therefore it's harder to hold it to the same standards as a developed one.
Ya. Reducing methane emissions in the USA isn't trivial either. Before these satelites provided independent verification, our oversight regiment was mostly self minitoring and reporting. That worked as well as you can guess.
Someone tell Elon this is the perfect place to put some refueling refineries for Starship ..
It's always been there. 20 years ago my father went for business in Turkmenistan, and all this was already in place. This country is one of the biggest producer of fossil fuel, it's an ultra-dictatorship, and has strong commercial partnerships with France. It's very well known.
So why is there sudden medias coverage of this?
I'm now doubting more and more that the politicians and medias really care about any environmental issue and that, like terrorism and pedophilia, it's used to motivate another agenda.
The problem is, unlike terrorism and pedophilia, climate change is an urgent issue that affects every single human in the world, so I really want this to be a genuine concern.
But some part of me now always wonder if somebody, somewhere, is not preparing us to invade Turkmenistan 2 years from now.
So why is there sudden medias coverage of this?
I'm now doubting more and more that the politicians and medias really care about any environmental issue and that, like terrorism and pedophilia, it's used to motivate another agenda.
The problem is, unlike terrorism and pedophilia, climate change is an urgent issue that affects every single human in the world, so I really want this to be a genuine concern.
But some part of me now always wonder if somebody, somewhere, is not preparing us to invade Turkmenistan 2 years from now.
Media coverage of methane leaks is going up because:
a) progress on various other sources (e.g. coal) means remaining issues move up the priority list
b) new satellite measurement techniques let us pinpoint blame, rather than do back of the envelope calculations based on educated guesses and global averages, which were bad enough but less actionable.
https://www.ghgsat.com/en/technology
a) progress on various other sources (e.g. coal) means remaining issues move up the priority list
b) new satellite measurement techniques let us pinpoint blame, rather than do back of the envelope calculations based on educated guesses and global averages, which were bad enough but less actionable.
https://www.ghgsat.com/en/technology
The media coverage has always been there, too. Even this particular instance is part of a long-running thread:
2021-10-31: UN launches International Methane Emissions Observatory https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/methane-...
2022-11-11: UN announces satellite-based Methane Alert and Response System https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-annou...
2023-01-19: Kayrros wins contract to supply the satellite data https://www.satelliteevolution.com/post/kayrros-to-supply-un...
2023-03-06: The Guardian publishes their first(?) article about data obtained from Kayrros https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/06/revealed...
2023-05-09: The Guardian publishes the follow-up submitted to HN here.
Lots of long-running situations are like this, constantly getting reported on at a level below most people's awareness threshold, and then when you stumble across one such report, it suddenly feels like a flood. See also the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.
2021-10-31: UN launches International Methane Emissions Observatory https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/methane-...
2022-11-11: UN announces satellite-based Methane Alert and Response System https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-annou...
2023-01-19: Kayrros wins contract to supply the satellite data https://www.satelliteevolution.com/post/kayrros-to-supply-un...
2023-03-06: The Guardian publishes their first(?) article about data obtained from Kayrros https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/06/revealed...
2023-05-09: The Guardian publishes the follow-up submitted to HN here.
Lots of long-running situations are like this, constantly getting reported on at a level below most people's awareness threshold, and then when you stumble across one such report, it suddenly feels like a flood. See also the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.
[deleted]
I’m all for making personal sacrifices to reduce the impact of climate change, but maybe this should be fixed before telling people they can’t fly?
Sure, go tell the people in Turkmenistan that they should pay more taxes to pay for the installation to flare or plug that hole. And hope that nobody on the supply chain will sell critical components in order to buy nice things for their children.
Oh, and btw they don't really fly that much. Not sure which people you meant. ;)
Oh, and btw they don't really fly that much. Not sure which people you meant. ;)
On a lighter note, I’m sure there is a Farside cartoon of the ‘scientist’ characters that specifically addresses this particular issue.
Selflessly bringing Tropical Hyperborea[1] closer for us Russians.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMAG0QiGhQc
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMAG0QiGhQc
Heavy polluters should have assets seized by military force as a matter of global security.
Beautiful green ecofascism. You are truly on the cutting edge ideologically.
No way around it. We already have some form of ecofascism by forcing companies to adhere to environmental regulations, for no other reason besides “the environment must be protected”. Getting a military involved is just the last resort when all other warnings fail.
Oh yeah, the multinationals are so afraid of regulations from the captured state which further entrench their existing monopolies. They’re so afraid of the military being dispatched from the centers of international finance to suppress and seize potential threats in developing countries. All in the name of “the planet”.
All of forms of fascism, ecofascism is one I could agree with.
We're way past the point of having to be tolerant of people polluting Earth, air and sea.
If the individual is shamed for throwing cigarette butts on the floor, executives of oil companies, knowingly releasing tons of methane in the atmosphere need to be launched into the Sun itself. Not get a slap on the wrist and go scot-free.
We're way past the point of having to be tolerant of people polluting Earth, air and sea.
If the individual is shamed for throwing cigarette butts on the floor, executives of oil companies, knowingly releasing tons of methane in the atmosphere need to be launched into the Sun itself. Not get a slap on the wrist and go scot-free.
You mean like, a special military operation?
The best solution is to mine bitcoin with it. They can quite easily turn the methane into money. There's a company doing this: https://www.weforum.org/videos/this-start-up-catches-waste-m...
Burning the fuel simply would be even better solution.
Or with the computing power, you could do more useful stuff: training AI, simulating protein folding, predicting weather.
Yes, that's possible (and which Crusoe Energy does too), but bitcoin is "the best" i.e. the easiest and probably the most profitable solution. There are additional challenges for general purpose data centers or GPU clusters, which limit their practicability in these conditions.
It's also the most useless for humanity. We are takling about a protocol where you must waste the most ressource in order to validate a transaction and get paid for it.
It's not used to validate transactions; it's used to protect the transaction from double-spending, i.e. to protect the property from theft.
It's impossible to protect private property without a cost.
Usually, private property is protected with laws and guns, but not everyone has access to these, or they come bundled with various external costs, or they fail to provide protection. Which is why Bitcoin is useful.
It's impossible to protect private property without a cost.
Usually, private property is protected with laws and guns, but not everyone has access to these, or they come bundled with various external costs, or they fail to provide protection. Which is why Bitcoin is useful.
> to protect the property from theft.
It also help theft by laundering money.
It also help theft by laundering money.
> "Most of the facilities leaking the methane were owned by Turkmenoil, the national oil company"
Makes me wonder if we should one day have, alongside the crime against humanity, the crime against nature itself.