Methane Cycle ignored

I worked on a few oil field projects, any time I read about cattle and methane I just remember these -

https://www.google.ie/search?q=Oil+Well+off+gas+flares&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiYm9HQ-ZeEAxVgWkEAHZsEBnQQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Oil+Well+off+gas+flares&gs_lp=EgNpbWciF09pbCBXZWxsIG9mZiBnYXMgZmxhcmVzSP8VUKQHWKgKcAB4AJABAJgBswegAZMbqgEHMC4xLjYtNLgBA8gBAPgBAYoCC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwgIEECMYJ4gGAQ&sclient=img&ei=ysvCZZiOBeC0hbIPm4mYoAc&bih=911&biw=2560&hl=en

They burn 24 hours a day 365 days a year for as long as that well produces. The heat off them is ferocious; it's not just a trickle of gas.

Ruminant methane is just another stick to beat agriculture with. There's no sense in anything anyone says regarding methane from animals in Ireland, none more so since the numbers of animals is static for 50 odd years!

However, off over there in Asia

We are pissing into the wind here

Just now some green lunatic banging on about methane and it’s all farmers fault.when asked by PK on newstalk should we cut farming completely she answered back by saying almost yes and started laughing.this is the crap that we are dealing with

in a 100 yrs time this period will be looked back on with dismay and anger

We are in a steady state in Ireland. According to the CSO, if I remember correctly, cattle numbers have increased 4% since 1973. They don't contribute to global warming as they are part of the cycle. What they emit is from stuff that has been stored and will be stored again. The don't generate new emissions. you've fallen for the whole accounting crap where only the output is looked at, and not the other side of the equation.

I'm very clear. They do emit methane of course. No argument there. But what they emit is methane, that has been converted to carbon and used to grow the crop that fed the animal to allow it release methane. It is not, 100%, adding to the overall levels of methane in the atmosphere. As for what they emit, the same amount is being taken in by the growing crops/trees/etc. It's a cycle, and it's carbon neutral. It's not "new" methane in the same way as extraction of fossil fuels can release huge amounts of it. That's new to the system from stuff that's been buried for millennia. It's the very definition of a steady state

And if we stopped flying/driving/eating then emissions would be down too.

Why is methane now a huge issue, when it hasn't been looked at with anything with the same ferocity as the last couple of years, despite the numbers being static?

They aren't contributing to global warming. They are using what has been captured, returned, and while doing that more is being captured. It's a steady state. Of course ending cattle, and all the other things would reduce emissions. That's not up for debate.

The main difference is that cattle, etc contribute to the growth and sustenance needed by humanity. Flying doesn't. Driving doesn't. At least the EU have sort of come around that agriculture is a special case as there is a trade off between food production and emissions. Trying to reduce the emissions while keeping food cheap, high quality and plentiful is the hard balancing act that has to be figured out.

Then again, the EU think that importing wood from South America and burning it to generate power is carbon neutral :-)

Or growing crops to turn into fuel to be burnt and release carbon is carbon neutral.

But God forbid you put a crop through a ruminant instead of a machine

They don't create methane. They recycle it. This is tiresome at this stage. The exact same amount of methane is in the atmosphere before the cattle created it as is after.