A methane molecule is one carbon atom bound to four hydrogen atoms. More than half of the energy released by burning it (53% according to [1]) comes from oxidizing the hydrogen to water. So it's roughly half as bad as coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and does not have the additional problems of sulfur (acid rain) and soot.

[1] https://people.wou.edu/~courtna/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fue...

▲

LunaSea 3 days ago | parent [-]

So not climate friendly.

▲

Aachen 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

With that logic, humans aren't climate friendly and should be transitioned away from

Different shades of grey. We'll always cause pollution as part of being. I don't believe that the person above meant it as a final solution to keep burning fossil fuels

	▲	SXX 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> With that logic, humans aren't climate friendly and should be transitioned away from Well, that's mostly solved problem by EU and even SEA: https://www.populationpyramid.net/europe/2024/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/south-eastern-asia/2024/

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

lm28469 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

At that point human life isn't climate friendly... everyone wants to live like the average american with 2 cars and 4 ac units per households, when Asia and Africa come for their fair share, even if they only claim 25% of it, we're fucked, no amount of battery or solar panel will make this consumeristic and "growth forever" mentality sustainable, because by definition it is a boundless quest. Half of the world still live like medieval peasants with less than $7 a day, this is just the beginning