Why then are we talking about "carbon credits" and "carbon sequestration" and limiting CO2 output when methane is so much more of a greenhouse gas? I haven't heard any politicians talk about reducing methane output, or methane caps, or methane sequestration.
CO2 is one Carbon and two Oxygen atoms per molecule.
CH4 (methane) is one Carbon and four Hydrogen atoms per molecule.
If you took an equivalent weight of CO2 and CH4 you would have more carbon atoms in the CH4 container.
To draw the line between these elementary school facts and the use of the term carbon when referring to greenhouse gas mitigation in terms even a certified scrum master can understand; the carbon atom is the common factor in the two most prevalent heat trapping gases involved in atmospheric chemistry.
Seriously, I hope the smart among them regard the little vendor merit badge with the right amount of sarcasm, because if you uncritically swallow a bunch of ritual packaged as a methodology and think that that somehow makes you safe from project failure... you're doomed.
A Google query for "methane and carbon sequestration" nets 179K results; not proof positive, but at least as relevant as your wikiwhack.
Also atmospheric methane breaks down into carbon dioxide and water in the presence of oxygen (at sufficient concentrations the reaction can take the form of a flame, or an explosion) so increased methane converts into increased carbon dioxide eventually.
Now, if I had infinite amounts of time and patience I would attempt to set you right; but my life is too crowded to waste time on someone who seems to delight in inflammatory political statements on a tech/biz forum.
Checking your google search, out of the first five pages _none_ are about methane sequestration. They all mention methane because, interestingly enough, methane is a by-product of CO2 sequestration.
I'm just going to ignore all of your barbs. Not really relevant to the discussion. You're right. You shouldn't engage in threads you don't know anything about.
We were talking about 'carbon sequestration' which, I've attempted several times to explain to you, also covers methane.
You can bloviate obtusely all you want, but it will not change the fact that I have formed the opinion that you are either an idiot, which is bad; or a troll, which is worse.
You pollute this site with an endless string of political cheap shots which; I'll be frank, even when I agree with you your tone and manner make me want to disagree with you.
And if I were a customer of yours I would be wondering how many of the billable hours I was paying for went to feed your HN habit; you're on here an awful lot.
For the same reason we make ethanol from corn: politicians, and redistribution of money. In both politics and economics, facts are almost entirely irrelevant today. I don't watch much TV, but when I watch the news, I could absolutely destroy any politician or economist that they bring on their shows. Their "facts" are generally half truths or outright false, and their logic is full of textbook fallacies. Although, it is quite interesting watching some of the good ones, how skillfully they can transition an answer to a question to one of their talking points, and appear to answer the interviewer question. I honestly can't blame joe sixpack for being so clueless if they get their information from TV news.
