Mr. Watts, looking at methane recovery from landfills and the like is an active area. But if you’re into methane recovery, what do you do if companies do not find it cost-effective to limit methane emissions while extracting or handling crude oil and natural gas? If you want companies to do things that don’t have a big ROI, then some sort of legislation becomes necessary.

Jerker Andersson: the cow farts are under ‘ruminants’.

Governments will not go after big tobacco as a possible source of man made global warming, by using their own science methods to point out a relationship would IMHO ultimately defuse the political thrust of their AGW argument. Tobacco accounts for 5.2 billion kilograms of methane per annum.

I’m not a statistician and cant easily get the info necessary to plot the appropriate chart but I’d be willing to bet there would be a massive upward sales trend especially in third world counties over the last ten years.

Yes the methane from Argentina could be natural. But if it was from cattle, this could raise an interesting international political issue. Note there is a plume of methane from Argentina extending over the south Atlantic. It reaches the British Islands of St Georgia and could potentially (with a change of wind) also go over the Falkland Islands.

Would this qualify as an act of chemical warfare against United Kingdom territory? In view of recent history involving Tony Blair and George Bush, if the UK chose to go to war over this issue it would help if they could accuse Argentina of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

Would Argentinian cattle qualify as such? Well if not weapons of mass destruction (WMD) then maybe weapons of gastric ruption (WGR)?

Yes the Argentinian methane could be natural. But if it were cattle – it raises an interesting international political issue. There is a plume of methane from Argentina extending over the South Atlantic. It looks like it goes over the British South Georgia Islands, it misses the Falklands but it the wind changed they could potentially also be in line for this methane plume.

Does this qualify as an act of chemical warfare against United Kingdom territory? This blog thread could conceivably then provoke renewed hostilities between Britain and Argentina. Of course, recent history involving Tony Blair and George Bush shows that, if the UK decided to go to war over this issue, it would help if they could allege the creation of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Could Argentinian cattle qualify as such? Well if not exactly Weapons of Mass Destruction, then possible Weapons of Gastric Ruption?

p.s. you’re probably right about it being Georgia not Iraq. (You should see what they eat in Georgia!)

Just to keep the extremely tiny amount of methane in the atmosphere in perspective:

Methane = 0.00017%

Helium = 0.0005%

Thus, there is about 3.4 times as much [almost non-existent] helium in the atmosphere as methane.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/deepseefrontier.pdf

Clarification: I don’t want the price of cheese & yogurt to go up.

OK cattle in Argentina (farting visible from space!), but why Iraq?

Could it be plain methane= Natural gas being released.

Not me, I am comfortable enough. The number of people who avoided selling out on the way to wealth and/or power is remarkably small. Ron Paul is one of the few I know of.

A little too much room for speculation there. I just don’t know enough about what goes on in the minds of the very rich, not that I would turn down the opportunity to, if it ever presented itself.

Not that it matters much, but I wonder if old and/or big money is behind this? It must be frustrating to be rich and see all the peasants prospering. A true meritocracy might really frighten them. It is said that most of the brilliant economists are hired by the Federal Reserve.

Yes. Minimally (and sanely) regulated Free Marked Capitalism is essential to a decent society, which is why the Greenies and their minions in government do all they can to thwart it.

That’s why they hype all these crises, like [CH4], which according to the NOAA graph I linked above is now stable. The lack of any problem can be seen better by looking at the long term trend for the last century through today….
http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Methane_2.gif

The rapid rise that began in about 1910 and ended about 1990 is over. Perhaps we have achieved a steady state? I don’t know, but it’s clear to me that there is no crisis; not even the hint of one.