[lisper]

Source?

Here's what I have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

"Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 9.1 years in the atmosphere..."

Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is.

[nonbel]

>"Source?"

I just searched "methane 36x more potent", here is a random result:

"CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1... Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years" https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin...

>"Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is."

So, you are in favor of the gas being released as methane then? Your reasoning is not clear.

EDIT:

To make it clear: Humans burning this gas for fuel leads to less greenhouse effect than would otherwise occur.

[lisper]

I'm in favor of radical curtailment of the burning of all fossil fuels. Anything short of that is going to be catastrophic. Yes, I know this is a pipe dream at this point. But a boy can still dream.

Deciding whether or not to burn this methane is kind of like being adrift on the north Atlantic and deciding whether or not to burn the ship to stay warm.

[nonbel]

I think you are underestimating how much methane there is under there.

>"There is a huge amount of carbon stored in permafrost. Right now, the Earth's atmosphere contains about 850 gigatons of carbon. (A gigaton is one billion tons—about the weight of one hundred thousand school buses). We estimate that there are about 1,400 gigatons of carbon frozen in permafrost." https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html

The beavers are going to do their thing and create comfortable habitats for themselves, which is melting the permafrost. So it looks like this gas is coming out one way or the other.