This has caused the Washington Post’s main climahysteric, Chris Mooney, to hyperventilate
But if a new study is correct, there’s a big problem: There might be more greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere than we thought. That would mean an even larger need to cut.
The new paper, slated to be published next week in BioScience, confirms a  significant volume of greenhouse gas emissions coming from a little-considered place: Man-made reservoirs, held behind some 1 million dams around the world and created for the purposes of electricity generation, irrigation, and other human needs. In the study, 10 authors from U.S., Canadian, Chinese, Brazilian, and Dutch universities and institutions have synthesized a considerable body of prior research on the subject to conclude that these reservoirs may be emitting just shy of a gigaton, or billion tons, of annual carbon dioxide equivalents. That would mean they contributed 1.3 percent of the global total.
Moreover, the emissions are largely in the form of methane, a greenhouse gas with a relatively short life in the atmosphere but a very strong short-term warming effect. Scientists are increasingly finding that although we have begun to curb some emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, we are still thwarted by methane, which comes from a diversity of sources that range from oil and gas operations to cows.
Certainly, methane is a considerably more potent GHG than CO2, and, while it’s atmospheric lifespan is much shorter, it’s greenhouse potential is much, much higher, nor does it seem to have that pesky doubling issue, where it stops really making a difference. The study took a look at 267 reservoirs, not just dams that produce energy, and
The research, said Deemer, complicates the idea that hydropower is a carbon-neutral source of energy, although she stresses that the authors aren’t saying that they’re against using large bodies of water to generate energy through dams. Rather, they’re arguing that the greenhouse gas calculus has to be included in evaluating such projects.
Well, extreme enviro-weenies and Warmists are all for these projects in theory. In practice? They work overtime to block the construction of any new dams, and are even trying to take down existing ones. What this study is suggesting is more government intervention and oversight. Because, you know, Leftists love government.
The authors acknowledge the study  does not represent a full “life cycle analysis†of reservoirs, taking into account how much carbon was stored (or emitted from) lands prior to their being flooded, and also what happens after reservoirs are decommissioned. Nor does it attempt to weigh the methane emissions from reservoirs used to generate hydropower against the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would presumably be created if that electricity was instead generated by burning coal or natural gas.
But it clearly suggests a need to take these emissions seriously, and conduct further research.
So, more taxpayer funds to continue to “study” this problem. Go figure
“We’re trying to provide policymakers and the public with a more complete picture of the consequences of damming a river,†said Harrison.
The consequences? Inexpensive energy, irrigation, and other benefits to human needs vs a tiny increase in global temperatures. Which do you choose?
Read: Hey, “Scientists” Discover New Key Source Of Greenhouse Gases Or Something »
