rather one has to convert it all to CO2-equivalent ( the 20-year equivalence for methane is 82.5x as great as it is for CO2, iirc the statistic correctly ),
which makes the methane from livestock MUCH worse than the CO2 from aviation…
BUT … aviation’s emissions are high up in the atmosphere, where they do more harm.
IOW, if one is comparing simple masses/ratios, then one simply isn’t seeing accurately.
Same as people who look at the global temperature increase, & assume that that is the total global energy increase, when late in the 1900’s suddenly there was an increase in atmospheric kinetic-energy, as recorded in seismographs near the coasts ( of waves pounding the shore ), as recorded in the greater number and violence of hurricanes, etc…
The more I learn, the more complicated real-understanding of the details becomes…
TTBOMK, it isn’t just the mass of emissions,
rather one has to convert it all to CO2-equivalent ( the 20-year equivalence for methane is 82.5x as great as it is for CO2, iirc the statistic correctly ),
which makes the methane from livestock MUCH worse than the CO2 from aviation…
BUT … aviation’s emissions are high up in the atmosphere, where they do more harm.
IOW, if one is comparing simple masses/ratios, then one simply isn’t seeing accurately.
Same as people who look at the global temperature increase, & assume that that is the total global energy increase, when late in the 1900’s suddenly there was an increase in atmospheric kinetic-energy, as recorded in seismographs near the coasts ( of waves pounding the shore ), as recorded in the greater number and violence of hurricanes, etc…
The more I learn, the more complicated real-understanding of the details becomes…
_ /\ _