Remix.run Logo
lillecarl an hour ago

Just burn your trash

https://www.energimyndigheten.se/en/news/2025/from-waste-to-...

My understanding is that biological decomposition of waste creates methane which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

elil17 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That's only if it's buried. Properly managed compost is the best option.

tclancy an hour ago | parent [-]

Is that something I can do with plastic though?

sigilis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Burning waste is listed in the article as an even better for the environment, but somewhat more expensive method.

The methane that landfills produce is routinely captured and burned for power, they may otherwise flare it off before it can contribute to the greenhouse effect. This is also mentioned in the article.

AlexandrB an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The thing with methane is that it has a lifespan of something like 10 years in the atmosphere before it breaks down to CO2 + water, while CO2 persists for centuries. I suspect that burning would release more net CO2 than emitting the methane and having it eventually break down to CO2.

[1] https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/meth...

> A molecule of methane traps more heat than a molecule of CO2, but methane has a relatively short lifespan of 7 to 12 years in the atmosphere. CO2 can persist for hundreds of years or more.

dbdr an hour ago | parent [-]

I you emit the methane, you have one molecule of CH₄ for 10 years, then one molecule of CO₂ for x years.

If you burn the methane, you have one molecule of CO₂ for x years.

Burning seems strictly better.

(If you use the heat of the burning to offset other emissions, it gets even better)

marcosdumay an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Landfills control for that and usually dispose the methane on a less polluting form.