Hacker News Reader

Comment by siilats | Hacker News Reader

The article title is misleading though. It was for 1 day that they emitted more. So overall about 1% of us emissions if you average for the year or 100 times less.

View on HN

"On 26 days from the period of Sept. 1 to Oct. 14, their daily emissions surpassed those of the entire US"

It seems they claim 26 days not 1, but you are correct the initial assumption readers will come to is that every day they exceed US emissions.

Even though the article claims this, 26 days would be 7% and I cannot see this being true. They must use some creative measurement that measures 10% of us emissions or something like this. There is no way that the emissions are more than the weight of the burning material plus oxygen and there is no way an island can burn thru so many tones every year

How is it misleading? The title seems to be saying exactly that. Or was it edited?

If the fires only burn e.g. 1 day per year, then they emit far less per day on average than the US.

The title implies continuous superiority of indonesian emissions, not that they out-produced the US emissions for a peak day (or 20, out of 365)

I don't see it. Maybe because I already knew that the fires aren't a continuous thing?

Title says 'per' day, meaning each day, implying continuity.

I guess it depends on what the complaint is about it being misleading. I thought the complaint was that the headline somehow implied they're always emitting more, year-round. But maybe it's something else? Note that the original correction is also completely wrong, as it says the fires emitted more for one day, while it's actually for a total of 26 days so far and probably set to increase further.

Original Article Title: Indonesia’s palm oil fires are emitting more greenhouse gases every day than the entire US

More Accurate Title: Indonesia’s palm oil fires are emitting more greenhouse gases on some days than the entire US

It is also misleading in that burning trees and burning fossil fuels is very different in terms of global warming. The carbon trees are made of was extracted from the air as the tree grew so the net added to at atmosphere is zero. The carbon from fossil fuels was nicely sequestered before it was dug up an burnt, adding to total carbon concentration in the air.

Edit: OK I read the second half about peat and yes, the peat was sequestered before the fire so that is not good.

Also, methane. It's worse than CO2 for 2 reasons: (1) It contributes far more to global warming, pound for pound. (2) Once you emit it, you can't take it back by planting trees, etc.

Then again methane naturally reacts with hydroxyl radicals into CO2 and water. The normal lifecycle of atmospheric methane is ~10 years.

Ok, we changed the title in an attempt to make that clear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com