this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
121 points (99.2% liked)

World News

54784 readers
2669 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Exclusive: Fixing a leak can be simple and equivalent to closing a coal power station, making lack of action maddening, say analysts

The world’s worst mega-leaks of the potent greenhouse gas methane in 2025 have been revealed by an analysis of satellite data.

The super-polluting plumes from oil and gas facilities have a colossal heating impact on the climate but often result from poor maintenance and can be simple to fix. The assessment found dozens of mega-leaks, each having the same global heating impact as a coal-fired power station.

The researchers said it was “maddening” that such easy action to fight the climate crisis was not being taken, and said people should be angry. Stopping the leaks can even be free, given that captured gas can be sold – methane is the “natural gas” that fires power stations.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] obre@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 hours ago

Negative externalities like these must be re-imposed on polluting companies through democratic governance. Regulatory capture and subversion are carried out by individuals and must be treated as crimes against humanity.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

The researchers said it was “maddening” that such easy action to fight the climate crisis was not being taken, and said people should be angry. Stopping the leaks can even be free, given that captured gas can be sold – methane is the “natural gas” that fires power stations.

It's maddening but expected.

When corporate decisions are based solely on pleasing investors, fixing a leak isn't a priority. It might be a long-term investment that eventually pays for itself, but it comes with a front-loaded cost that diminishes the profits of the current quarter.

The only way to get them to care about the problem is if it's actively unprofitable or comes with personal liability for the leadership, and the only way that will happen is with regulations.

In other words: "why about the survivability of the species when we can instead care about making our investor's loins tingle?"

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 36 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

But make sure you turn lights off, consumer, because it's all your fault.

[–] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

Well these d-bags aren't operating these oil or gas wells for funzies

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

What’s your carbon footprint

[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I get what you're saying and the "individual carbon footprint" is often used to blame shift to regular people just living their lives, but we do still have a carbon footprint. It may be a tiny, rodent-sized footprint compared to the Kaiju-sized ones of big industries, but our actions and choices do have an effect (especially collectively).

I just don't like dismissing the individual carbon footprint as total propaganda because it's not wrong (though I acknowledge it is abused). Dismissing it like that just puts out a defeatist "nothing I do matters" message when our individual choices do matter and add up.

Can you live a totally carbon-neutral life in the modern age? No, probably not. But we also shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and do nothing.

[–] kozy138@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You're trying to fix the leaky sink while the house is on fire.

No one is saying that we don't have a carbon footprint. All life does.

But we, as a society, need to first focus on the things that are most destructive. In this case, fossil fuel infrastructure and the institutions keeping it in place.

It's not an "or" situation. It is and always has been an "and".

My gripe is with people refusing to do anything on a personal level because "what does it matter when X industry pollutes more in 5 minutes than I do in a year?".

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 13 points 5 hours ago

I saw last week the Gas Leaks Project published some more data on this subject. The largest leak they found was something like 50-60 times higher than the EPA definition of a 'super emitter'. Incredible really.

When compared to coal, methane is obviously much more efficient at energy generation. But this is true when we measure only the material burned, not when we look at the supply chain. With methane being 80-90 times more damaging to the atmosphere than the byproducts of burning coal, the end result is very tight once these leaks are accounted for.

So tight that, given the reporting requirements for methane leaks are 'we trust you to use the honour system', it's more likely than not methane is doing more damage per resulting kilowatt than coal ever has. The equivalent 'leaking' for the coal supply chain is a lump of it falling off a train car and becoming a rock, to the benefit of only one guy. Rocks don't tend to destroy the air, only naughty children's Christmas mornings.

Of course this isn't to suggest we build more coal infrastructure, just to point out that with these methane leaks being so prevalent, it's not remotely as useful an energy source as has been believed. Remember a decade ago when 'bridge fuel' was mentioned in every conversation about clean energy? Honestly it's shocking that these companies have deemed it cheaper to not even look for leaks than to keep the product they sell from floating away.

Here's an interesting quote from former Exxon mechanical engineer, Dar-Lon Chang:

"When they were marketing natural gas as clean energy, they didn't really know what they were talking about because they were fixated on the idea that natural gas, when burned, produces half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal.

The industry was not monitoring methane leakage, so they did not have data about how much was leaking, and there wasn't much appetite for management to measure methane leakage because if they found out there was a problem they would have to do something about it."

Source (I lost the timestamp, but it's in part three, apologies)

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 7 points 5 hours ago

Very one sided story. Doesn't mention gas industry profits at all.

[–] sleepdrifter@startrek.website 1 points 3 hours ago

I know YT shorts are bunk, but for anyone who partakes and wants to curate their stream, may I present climate town on this issue:

https://youtube.com/shorts/8A42tiQ04CE

[–] 20cello@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's a miracle we didn't get extinct yet

It's started, it's just unevenly distributed among the poorer populations

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 hours ago