DEAR SIR: I write regarding the recent UN climate change report and a summary article in the Economist magazine, citing the roughly equal but opposite warming/cooling effects of methane (from mainly agriculture) and sulphur (from coal power generation) emissions respectively, being a projected plus and minus 0.5°C of the projected 1.5°C targeted all-in global warming increase.
This quite depressing scientific reality means that the positive effects from the elimination of methane emissions will be largely cancelled out where sulphur emissions are also successfully eliminated – the difference being that the shorter half-life of methane means the positive impact of such changes will be faster achieved, but would still be undone in due course by the cancelled cooling effect of sulphur emissions – a case of the “hare and the tortoise” in effect.
Being a practising accountant, I have no solutions to this dichotomy, but as the agri sector faces negotiations to lower its emissions, policymakers may need to be more aware of the subtlety of these various warming/cooling components, with greater awareness that methane’s shorter half-life means such reductions will, at least, have a much quicker impact on any targeted temperature change trajectory.
ADVERTISEMENT
Register for free to read this story and our free stories.
This content is available to digital subscribers and loyalty code users only. Sign in to your account, use the code or subscribe to get unlimited access.
The reader loyalty code gives you full access to the site from when you enter it until the following Wednesday at 9pm. Find your unique code on the back page of Irish Country Living every week.
CODE ACCEPTED
You have full access to the site until next Wednesday at 9pm.
CODE NOT VALID
Please try again or contact support.
DEAR SIR: I write regarding the recent UN climate change report and a summary article in the Economist magazine, citing the roughly equal but opposite warming/cooling effects of methane (from mainly agriculture) and sulphur (from coal power generation) emissions respectively, being a projected plus and minus 0.5°C of the projected 1.5°C targeted all-in global warming increase.
This quite depressing scientific reality means that the positive effects from the elimination of methane emissions will be largely cancelled out where sulphur emissions are also successfully eliminated – the difference being that the shorter half-life of methane means the positive impact of such changes will be faster achieved, but would still be undone in due course by the cancelled cooling effect of sulphur emissions – a case of the “hare and the tortoise” in effect.
Being a practising accountant, I have no solutions to this dichotomy, but as the agri sector faces negotiations to lower its emissions, policymakers may need to be more aware of the subtlety of these various warming/cooling components, with greater awareness that methane’s shorter half-life means such reductions will, at least, have a much quicker impact on any targeted temperature change trajectory.
If you would like to speak to a member of our team, please call us on 01-4199525.
Link sent to your email address
We have sent an email to your address. Please click on the link in this email to reset your password. If you can't find it in your inbox, please check your spam folder. If you can't find the email, please call us on 01-4199525.
ENTER YOUR LOYALTY CODE:
The reader loyalty code gives you full access to the site from when you enter it until the following Wednesday at 9pm. Find your unique code on the back page of Irish Country Living every week.
SHARING OPTIONS